Last night I was speaking about Garda Síochána cars and the necessity to have proper squad cars. I made my point at some considerable length and it is important that it should be on the record of the House. I also mentioned the condition of Garda stations. The Minister in his speech revealed that the Garda Commissioner has furnished him with a rather horrifying figure in the matter of Garda stations. He said that 150 new stations are needed immediately, in other words 150 existing stations need replacement immediately. In addition, he mentioned a figure of 250 in need of major repair. We expect the best from the Garda Síochána. Therefore we must give them every help. To do their job well they must have proper working conditions. We in this House must be open to some criticism when the Minister can produce from the Commissioner a figure of 150 Garda stations in need of replacement and 250 in need of major repair. They are telling figures. It is not fair to have people in any area of endeavour in this community working in such conditions. I have some small experience of the William Street Garda Station in Limerick. This is a deplorable station. How we can expect people to live in and work from that station is beyond my comprehension. The Minister has indicated that he intends to have it-replaced.
I see that the building programme is to cost £2½ million over the next five years. I consider that the programme should be dealt with immediately and that a five-year period is too long. It should be cut down to two or certainly three years at the very most. I know there are other problems which could necessitate the extension of the building programme to five years but I would urge the Minister to re-consider the possibility of cutting down the Garda station building programme to three years.
The Minister told us that contracts have been placed for major improvement schemes to Enniskerry and Naas Garda stations and that schemes have been approved for Finglas, Mountjoy and Whitehall Garda stations in the Dublin area and for the Garda stations in Mullingar, Lusk, Cabinteely and Ballyconnell and for MacCurtain Street in Cork. I hope the MacCurtain Street station will be dealt with urgently and that the Watercourse Road station in Cork will also be dealt with. I note that the Minister has not mentioned the Watercourse Road one. Perhaps he would take that one into consideration. Cabinteely Garda station in my constituency is representative of the Garda stations that are in need of replacement or improvement. This one is certainly in need of replacement. Cabinteely Garda station is a disgrace. There are 25 or 30 gardaí operating from that station. The Garda Síochána must have, in the interests of the community, the best possible accommodation.
Another matter which concerns me is the rates of pay. My information is that a garda reaches the maximum in nine years and that this is bad in comparison with other similar endeavours in the public service. I know it is harmful to make comparisons but I have an example of the type of comparison that could be drawn. In my view gardaí are asked to wait too long to reach the maximum. We believe it should be reached in six years.
The Minister mentioned the Sunningdale communiqué and the matter of the police authority under the Council of Ireland. We would refer specifically to the part of the Minister's speech where he says he has been in constant consultation and will be in constant consultation, with the Garda Síochána in connection with the setting up of a police authority. We welcome the setting up of a police authority. We cannot over-emphasise the need for the Minister and his public servants to keep in constant contact with the Garda Síochána until a full police authority has emerged. Unfortunately, the Minister, in his speech, did not set out his own thinking as to the type of police authority he would wish for; perhaps he was limited by the fact that the matter has not resolved itself fully yet and that he has to do considerable research into the matter of a police force for this part of the country. He may be restricted by lack of full knowledge.
This is fair enough; it is not said by way of criticism; one has to glean experience from the experience of others and the Minister, I am sure, is searching out that experience. My information is that some of his own civil servants may have gone to Britain. If so, I would ask the Minister to set out what investigations are being conducted into police authorities elsewhere. To my own knowledge, there is a figure of 84 police authorities in Britain, in England and Wales. Scotland have their own special position having regard to the form of law they have there which is distinct in many respects from the common law system in England and Wales. Therefore, I would ask the Minister particularly to take account of our concern on the matter of the setting up of a police authority.
The Garda Síochána, unlike the RUC, enjoy the total public support of this part of the country and, indeed, in public relations. It must be made clear that any new authority will strengthen the Garda and that they should be fully consulted at every stage in its development. We believe that the setting up of a police authority provides an opportunity for an examination of the structure of the force, as recommended by the Conroy Report and, in particular, its relationship with the Department of Justice. I would refer the Minister to the Conroy Report which, in addition to reporting on remuneration—which is a rather long word for the word "pay"—and conditions of service of the Garda Síochána made other comments. This was a report presented to the then Minister for Justice in January, 1970. In fairness to the outgoing Minister for Justice, much of what is in the report has been implemented to the satisfaction of the Garda but there are a number of points which remain to be implemented and which the present Minister might implement.
Going back to the matter of the police authority and examining the relationship between the Department of Justice and the Garda, I do not wish in any way to criticise either the Garda or the Department of Justice, but, going through the agreed communiqué following the conference between the Irish and British Governments at Sunningdale on the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th December, 1973, one detects, reading that in conjunction with the Conroy Report, a thread indicative of a need for some type of separation between the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána. We believe the Garda Síochána could be left to themselves to a greater extent, at all times subject—need I say, and the gardaí would agree with me, as, indeed, I know would the Minister for Justice—to Dáil Éireann and to the control of Dáil Éireann. Nevertheless, there is that thread, that suggestion, going through anything I have read in the last six to nine months of a need, a desire or a wish to separate the inter-dependence between the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána.
I have no personal experience of the Department of Justice or great experience of the Garda Síochána; the Minister has me at a disadvantage in that respect. He has been Minister for Justice for a year. My friend and colleague, Deputy O'Malley, was the Minister for Justice for three years. They would be more experienced in relation to first hand workings of the Department. Anyway, I think to criticise public officials is rather a cowardly form of effort by public representatives and any criticism that might have to be made of public officials, by Dáil or, indeed, Oireachtas representatives, should be directed at the Minister of that Department. It is not my intention to pillory any body or group of individuals in public, quite the contrary; anything I would say would be I hope considered to be constructive.
To come back to the Conroy Report and this thread that runs through it and other reports on the matter of the separation of the inter-dependence between the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice, having concluded on the matter of pay and conditions the learned judge and his colleagues on the commission felt constrained to add a final paragraph which was, in fact, outside their terms of reference and it was an extremely important paragraph. It is paragraph 1266 and it reads as follows:
We would be failing in our duty to the Minister if we did not strongly urge that an examination be carried out by appropriately qualified people into the role, organisation and personnel policy of the Force and, in particular, its relationship with the Department of Justice.
It goes on to say, in paragraph 1267, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c):
For example:
(a) There was evidence of an unclear definition of roles as between the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána. Specifically, there was a vagueness, causing uncertainty and ineffectiveness, about the relationship between the Department and the Commissioner. There seemed to us to be a lack of delegation from the Department to the Force. This lack of delegation permeated the Force. Authority— particularly in relation to financial resources—was not commensurate with responsibility, causing an unhealthy "them and us" attitude.
(b) There was no comprehensive planning based on research. No one was specifically charged with this function. The result was reaction to circumstances and ad hoc decision making.
(c) There was no clear personnel policy. We found it disturbing that, in a Force of this size, there was no one with specific responsibility for developing an on-going personnel policy, including training and retraining.
The Minister mentioned in his Estimate speech the matter of Garda training and his concern that the training is not comprehensive enough. As I understand it, the new Garda recruit goes to the Garda training centre for 18 months of his training. He then goes out into the world for 12 months and returns after that period for phase two of his training which, I believe, is four weeks. I understand that at the moment phase two is not being operated. This is a matter for concern and the Minister in fairness, has expressed concern and we share it. The Garda recruits should have a full training programme that should not be interrupted.
However, I will return to the Conroy report. Paragraph 1268 states:
These are some of the areas requiring further examination. They are akin to the weaknesses found in the Public Service as a whole by the Devlin Group.
The Minister's Estimate speech is literally littered with commissions, working parties and consultations with this, that, or the other person. If the Minister is in that form, he might consider taking into account the observation in the Conroy report where they said they would be failing in their duty if they did not bring to the attention of the Minister the matters expressed by them. Would the Minister consider calling for an examination by appropriately qualified people into the role, organisation and personnel policy of the force and in particular its relationship with the Department of Justice? The Minister might consider the possibility of setting up such a body. Perhaps now is not the proper time to do so having regard to the delicate security position. Perhaps it is not appropriate to urge the Minister to take immediate action and thus upset the security situation in any respect. All we are asking for is an examination as recommended in the Conroy report. It is not an unreasonable request. I believe that the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice would welcome such an examination. It would clear the air.
In addition to the proposed Police Authority under the Council of Ireland, as suggested in the Sunningdale communiqué, this examination must, and should take place. Will members of the Garda Síochána be on the Police Authority? The Minister might give us some idea in his reply. The problem in regard to his speech is that it is vague in certain areas. It is not fair to the Members of this House when the Minister does not come clean on matters of national importance. The community relies on the Garda Síochána for security as, indeed, it does on the Defence Forces. Forces.
The Police Authority is referred to at paragraph 15 of the Sunningdale communiqué:
With a view to improving policing throughout the island and developing community identification with and support for the police services, the governments concerned will cooperate under the auspices of a Council of Ireland through their respective police authorities. To this end, the Irish Government would set up a Police Authority, appointments to which would be made after consultation with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. In the case of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, appointments would be made after consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, which would consult with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. When the two Police Authorities are constituted, they will make their own arrangements to achieve the objectives set out above.
Paragraph 16 goes on:
An independent complaints procedure for dealing with complaints against the police will be set up.
We will support the Government in this matter of the Police Authority, if the Sunningdale communiqué comes to fruition. We have expressed concern about a number of items in the communiqué, but I am dealing specifically with the Police Authority. It is the Minister's function, and our function in Opposition, to present the Garda case clearly and their reaction to paragraph 15 and 16 of the Sunningdale communiqué.
The new Garda Review is an excellent magazine. I should like to be associated with the welcome extended to this informed and informative magazine. It is very helpful to those who are concerned with the running of and up to date information on the Garda Síochána. Its editorial reported in The Irish Press on 23rd January, 1974—I have not a copy of the magazine but I have The Irish Press— stated under the heading “Sunningdale: Garda Caution”:
The setting up of a police authority for the Garda Síochána, as outlined in the Sunningdale communiqué, is described in the current issue of the Garda Review as “the most important development” since the foundation of the force.
The editorial says that under the terms of the Sunningdale Agreement the gardaí will in some measure be answerable to the new Council of Ireland, as will the RUC, and that this will bring the two forces considerably closer than they have traditionally been. Moreover, the Garda will henceforth be administered in a different way with the creation of the proposed new police authority.
"It is important," the editorial continues, "that the Garda should not lose its lead in its relationship with the community and that it should not find itself cast in the role of a gendarmerie or a frontier militia.
"Brought to its essentials this means that the Garda Síochána does not want to assume the functions which circumstances thrust upon their counterparts in the North. Nor does the Garda Síochána want to be an armed police force."
The concept of the unarmed city policeman has been one of the most valuable achievements of the State, says the editorial, and the future of the Garda and the role it will play in the Ireland of tomorrow will be decided within the next few weeks.
The "next few weeks" have come and gone and no decision has been reached. The Minister may have further information on the police authority and other matters to which he will refer in his reply
To conclude the general reference on the matter of the Sunningdale communiqué and the reaction of the editorial of the Garda Review, that editorial pointed out that the Conroy Commission reported that any structural improvements which bettered the efficiency of the force and brought them closer to the people must be welcomed. One hopes that the Government will take advantage of the opportunity offered by a re-structuring to put right some of the wrongs pointed out by Conroy. I have mentioned some of the wrongs which the Conroy Commission wish the Government to correct.
When large numbers of Garda are called up for security operations, and the Heath visit exemplified this, there is a total lack of co-ordination between the Department of Justice and the Garda as to the treatment of the gardaí on such duty. On the occasion of Mr. Heath's visit a number of the gardaí on duty at Baldonnel were left without food and in some instances but for the generosity of the local community in that area they would have been left without food for 24 hours. This is not good enough. We feel the Government have taken note of that first example of a breakdown, not in relation to security because the gardaí did their duty on that day, but in relation to the manner in which they were asked to perform their duty. Proper arrangements must be made for the comfort of gardaí on such duties and proper and regular meals must be provided.
On the question of crime the Minister in his speech indicated that the Commissioner in his report stated that indictable offences rose in 1972 from 37,781 to 39,327, an increase of 3.8 per cent. At the same time detection fell from 45.9 per cent to 43.4 per cent, and Dublin was as low as 33.7 per cent. Special efforts must be made to increase the detection rate and to put a half to the growing violence in Dublin city and county in particular. The Minister stated that he is inducting 500 new recruits and he should consider stationing the bulk of these recruits in the Dublin area.
There may be reasons why they should not be stationed in Dublin but the general crime pattern in the city is on the increase. Crimes of violence in the city are also on the increase, a fact which is confirmed by the Commissioner's report. Consequently, more gardaí should be on the beat on the streets of Dublin. This should be treated as a matter of urgency. In this respect the Minister might tell the House how his recruiting campaign is progressing. We wish his campaign well. The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Defence, is never slow to tell us how his campaign is progressing. We wish the campaign for recruits to the Garda and the Defence Forces well.
The Minister also dealt with the question of prisons. In my view the Minister is to be congratulated for allowing journalists into the prisons so that they could see first-hand what goes on in them. Much of the response to the Minister's invitation to journalists to visit the prisons was not that great but their criticism was undoubtedly constructive. I am sure the Minister did not expect to receive 100 per cent praise for the conditions of the prisons, quite the contrary, but his decision to invite these journalists to visit the prisons was a good one. Before the Minister took that decision he had anticipated a question of mine on the possibility of allowing journalists to gain first-hand knowledge of the prison conditions through visitation. They gained first-hand knowledge and it was proper that they should have done so.
I should now like to refer to an examination of the penal system which was conducted by the Community Development Division of the Department of Psychiatry of University College, Dublin. Before going into detail on the report I should like to state that the Fianna Fáil Social and Individual Rights group visited prisons. We saw Mountjoy, St. Patrick's Institution and the women's prison. As I understand it, the women's prison in the complex we know as Mountjoy is a wing of St. Patrick's Institution. In addition to that I visited Shanganagh Castle on a number of occasions. I did not have the opportunity of visiting Portlaoise Prison, through no fault of the Minister. On one occasion I was asked, for good and sufficient reason, to postpone my visit but I should like the Minister to re-activate his invitation to me so that I can visit that prison at some time convenient to him and the prison authority.
Some concern is being expressed about the possibility of the Kilbarrack project for a women's prison not being carried out. The political antennae are up in this respect and for this reason the Minister should assure the House that this project will go ahead and that this prison will be sited there. The condition of the women's prison in Mountjoy leaves a lot to be desired. In fairness to the prison officers, male and female, they keep the place spotless, but the buildings are not up to the standard of what is required in a modern prison. That is why we want an undertaking that the Kilbarrack project will be completed urgently.
Apparently, the group in UCD had some difficulty in obtaining information from the Minister and his Department. In their report they state that their main problem was that the Minister and his Department did not co-operate in any way with their efforts. They state that they wrote, having received an acknowledgment of their first letter, on several occasions but none of their letters was acknowledged. The report mentions a number of officials communicated with in relation to this matter but I am not going to mention these officials because it is not my practice to do so. The report goes on to state that because of this lack of co-operation they were unable to interview many of those working in the different services provided in the prisons, including chaplains, governors, welfare officers and prison doctors. They concluded by pointing out that they were unable to see for themselves the accommodation in any of the prisons. There was a limitation on the report but it must be read in the context of what this group of people state at page 4 where they say that the very closed system which they encountered between the Department and the Minister imposed severe limitations on their research and that they were forced to piece together a picture of the prison process from accounts of people who experienced that process in a different capacity. The report says that an endeavour was made thoroughly to cross-check all the information received. No doubt there are inaccuracies in the report but it was an effort by people who are obviously concerned to set out for the benefit of the community a clear and concise if not, through no fault of their own, entirely accurate report of the whole area of the penal system.
Having regard to the group's limitations the attempt was a fair one and the document produced is very helpful if for no other reason than that it indicates clearly, by its headings and paragraphs, the various areas of the penal system. It sets out also the number of prisons in Ireland and brings together, in booklet form, the whole essence of the penal system. For all of that it is worthwhile.
Reference is made in the report to the psychiatric service in Mountjoy. The psychiatric service in prisons generally is a matter of concern to the social and individual rights group of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party. Apparently, the psychiatrist attached to Mountjoy visits the prison once a week during which session he sees, on average, six or seven prisoners. These prisoners are referred to him by the prison medical officer. We have no complaint on that score. It is interesting to note that in 1964 the then Minister for Justice said that psychiatric treatment was provided for inmates who were in need of special medical care, that a 20-bed psychiatric unit had been opened in the hospital wing of Mountjoy and was operating under the control of the prison medical officer who was a qualified psychiatrist. He went on to say that occupational therapy was provided for those undergoing treatment and that consultant services were available to the prison medical officer where necessary. I understand that these services became available as a result of the recommendations of an inter-departmental committee who had been set up to deal with matters relative to the prisons. What the social and individual rights committee of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party would urge is that a full-time psychiatrist be attached to the various prisons. In January, 1973, the department of forensic medicine of the Eastern Health Board commenced a service on a weekly session basis both to Mountjoy and to St. Patrick's Institution. These then, are some of the matters that concern not only us but the Minister also and we would support him in any action he might take in these fields.
Regarding prison officers it is our belief that this group of people have been made the whipping post, that they have been the subject of a considerable amount of unfair criticism by certain individuals and groups. These individuals and groups might examine themselves in the light of their contribution to the community as against the contribution made by the prison officers. In the main the criticism that has been levelled at the prison officers has been unfair and unsubstantiated. Much of it cannot be supported.
Prison officers have an important role to play in the rehabilitation of prisoners and, therefore, efforts should be made to recruit into the prison service qualified personnel so as to enable prison staff to provide teaching and medical and welfare services for prisoners. On a number of occasions the Prison Officers' Association have stated that they favour the introduction of certain standards in relation to assessment and recruitment of candidates. Pre-service training and increased recruitment of officers is needed badly to ease over-work. In this context there is no reason why prison officers should not be regarded as being the same as members of the Garda Síochána and be given a comprehensive pre-induction training programme. The four-week induction course can hardly be considered adequate to prepare people for this service. The Prison Officers' Association deserve the best possible treatment because of the extremely responsible job of work they do on behalf of the community.
I have here quotations from various presidents of the Prison Officers' Association. In his 1970 presidential address the then president of the association gave an indication of the executive thinking within the association when he said that it had long been recognised that the whole concept of the role of the prison officer had been changing from the old idea of a warder to that of someone who was much more than a social worker. He said that in all the processes of rehabilitative treatment in prisons the most important element is the relationship that exists between the prison officer and those committed to his care and that, therefore, it was vital that training in the skills of a social worker be provided for prison officers who would then find that they were enabled to perform their duties more effectively.
In 1972 the then president of the association, Mr. Gerry Dunne, said that, with the introduction some years ago of new measures of re-socialisation of offenders, members of the association prepared themselves wholeheartedly to play an effective part in all aspects of therapeutic treatment designed to encourage and influence an offender to lead a good and useful life on his return to society. It is interesting to note that the 1947 Prison Rules still govern the role of the prison officer. I do not think it is a matter for me to quote at length from the 1947 prison rules but it is an interesting view on the circumstances and demands of 1974 that the prison officers themselves wish for an updating of the 1947 rules. I have already mentioned the Garda Síochána and their relationship with the Department of Justice. The Minister might take a look at the relationship of the Department and the prison officers, to consider the possibility of prison officers taking more decisions on their own account and still preserve the interdependence between the Department of Justice and the Prison Officers' Association.
With regard to recruitment, it is interesting to note that entry to the prison service and the basic trade of temporary prison officer is open to all who have reached 19 years, have a primary certificate level of education, are 5 foot 7 inches and have a stable personality. The prison officers consider this is not a high enough standard to qualify themselves to be described as prison officers. It is a decent and important job of work that cannot and must not be underrated in any respect. We would recommend that young men consider the possibility of becoming prison officers or members of our Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána. They are respected members of the community.
The report on the Irish penal system produced by the psychiatric division of UCD sets out the working conditions and training for prison officers and specialists. The concerns and needs of the prison officers should be dealt with by the Minister for Justice. When we visited Mountjoy we received the greatest attention and courtesy from the Governor and the officers of the prison who conducted us on our tour and also from the official of the Department of Justice who was with us. We spent a considerable number of hours visiting Mountjoy, St. Patrick's Institution and the women's prison.
When a person leaves Mountjoy or any other prison he does not work his way back into the social welfare system until a fortnight after his release. This seems rather harsh treatment and I would ask the Minister to examine the possibility that when a person leaves a prison he should be inducted immediately into the social welfare code. After all, the prisoner has discharged his debt to the society against which he has sinned and he should be allowed to re-establish himself immediately as a full member of that society. The social and individual rights group of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party see no reason why such a person should not be inducted into the social welfare code immediately on his release.
At the moment when a prisoner is released there is no special provision for his welfare. He leaves prison with 35p for every week he spent in prison —apparently this sum is half the amount of pocket money he obtained for working in prison. He is given a travel ticket either to the court area in which he was sentenced or to his home. A problem emerges immediately because very few prisoners have a job and many have no home or accommodation. Voluntary services have been provided by the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Guild of St. Philip. This was established in 1948 to organise the after-care and rehabilitation of male delinquents, in particular young and first offenders. That guild have since developed to include female prisoners. Their aim is the hope of restoring potential and habitual criminals to the status of industrious and self-respecting citizens. We must wonder if society has discharged its obligations. The prisoners have paid their debt to society but have we discharged our obligations to them on their release from prison? I do not think we have.
There are a number of firms, a group of business people who endeavour to provide immediate work for prisoners on their release and credit must be given to them. However, this is not practised to any great degree. There is the idea that because a person was in jail he should be an outcast in society for the rest of his life. That is wrong and unfair thinking. Not only does the prisoner have to pay his debt to society within the prison walls but when he comes out the community continue his sentence. We object to that attitude. That is why we ask the Minister as a matter of urgency to set up some type of agency that would give immediate employment to prisoners.
I know there are recidivists. There are people who cannot keep their hands out of the till no matter where they are put or what is done for them. It is unfortunate these people cannot be cured of their criminal propensity. There is little one can do for those individuals; they cannot help committing crime. Something went wrong at the beginning and they turn up continually and become known as old lags in prison parlance. However, there are people who commit first, second or third offences who can be caught in time through proper rehabilitation, education and training within the prison system and, on their release, taken into the care of some unit provided by the State and given some kind of comfort, home comfort or otherwise, and then given a job. It is part of the rehabilitation process we were speaking about earlier.
I would imagine that there is nothing as soul destroying for an individual as to come out of prison and hang around week after week becoming more resentful day by day, feeling very strongly about the attitude of society and saying: "I cannot get a job. What will I do?" Then he commits another crime. I almost asked: who can blame him? That is why we say some special full-time unit should be provided by the State to provide jobs for prisoners who want employment and who are educated for employment within the system.
There is a half-way house known as Priorswood House. There are three criteria for induction into Priorswood House: homelessness, a will to better himself on the part of the prisoner, and employability. Apparently a prisoner ceases to be employable after the age of 55 years. Let us take the first one, homelessness. A prisoner comes out of prison with a very small sum of money. What does he do? I will leave that question in the air because it deserves to be left in the air. The second is a will to better himself on the part of the prisoner. What if the prisoner does not have the will? What if the will is not created within the prisoner by the penal system? Where is the will? What happens if the prisoner has not got the will? These are questions which must concern us. Apparently these are the criteria required for induction into Priorswood House which was the first half-way house to be established in this country.
A half-way house can be described as an accommodation or a place half-way between the prison and society. We should have more half-way houses. Apparently between January, 1970, and April, 1973, 105 ex-prisoners passed through the half-way house. A group describing themselves as Prisoners Aid through Community Concern were set up in January by the Chaplain in Mountjoy Prison, the welfare officer and a number of professional and business men. PACE were given a grant of £4,000 by the Department of Justice to renovate the house described. It is fair to bring these matters to the Minister's attention. He is aware of them and I do not intend to labour that point very much further. I do not want to take up much more of the time of the House. This is my third effort to conclude on this Estimate. Whatever the merits of one's contribution, one does not like to have it interrupted by continually reporting progress. My point is that I do not wish to detain the House very much longer.
Recent legislation has greatly improved a difficult situation by increasing the number of judges. There are some 35 or 37 justices in the country. Undoubtedly there is need for an extra district justice in Dublin for civil work. The justice dealing with civil work in the district court has been known to sit on until 7 o'clock. That is very unfair to him. He does it in an uncomplaining way, to be fair to him. He is very decent about it. He wants help, and the system wants help. That is why we are calling for the appointment of a new district justice to deal specifically with civil work in the district court system in Dublin. That is not an unreasonable request.
The Minister mentioned that there is some delay in the provision of the new courts complex. He was rather sketchy as to what the delay was. In fact, he did not say what it was, for some reason or other. He might consider giving us some reasons for the delay in the provision of the courts complex. The Minister knows from his own experience as a solicitor that, from the District Court, to the Circuit Court, to the High Court, to the Supreme Court, facilities are deplorable, particularly for litigants. The lack of decent toilet facilities and washing facilities is well known. I mention litigants specifically, people who come in either to defend, or prosecute, or be prosecuted. These courts are there for their use.
I will deal with litigants in the first instance. Outside Courts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at Morgan Place in the Four Courts one has to conduct one's consultations in a throbbing mass of people. This is a deplorable situation. There are no proper seating facilities. It is a matter of physical accommodation. This is why the Minister's announcement that there is some delay in completing the courts complex is causing this side of the House some concern. Outside Courts Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at Morgan Place for people who are being defended or prosecuted, as the case may be, and for solicitors or barristers, holding a consultation is almost impossible.
For the proper presentation of a case the siting of the courts and the soundproofing of the courts are a cause of great difficulty to the presiding justice and those in the courts waiting for their cases to be heard and for counsel and solicitors. The accommodation there from the point of view of district justices is not good enough. They have to operate in a district court, in two instances in Morgan Place, where there is a rush of traffic outside the windows. This is most unfair from the point of view of the proper dispensation of justice. We call on the Minister as a matter of urgency to have this problem dealt with.
The Minister mentioned the district courts and also some problems in relation to some court in Waterford or wherever. Having regard to what the Minister said about the sub judice rule, it is not my intention to raise that matter here. There is a court which does not come within the sub judice rule, that is, the Rathfarnham Courthouse in County Dublin. As a representative of one of the worst courthouses in this or I would imagine any other country from the point of view of facilities, I can say that on a rainy day one certainly cannot conduct a consultation there. If one wants to conduct a consultation on a rainy day one goes to one's car with the client or clients and conducts it there. If one is so minded, of course, there is a public house across the road into which one can go and conduct one's consultation. We consider that does not make for the practice of good law.
I can speak from personal experience in respect of Rathfarnham District Court. It is representative of the physical structure of some of our courthouses and the Minister might take this into account. It is not good enough that the district justice, the gardaí—I am not putting them in any order of priority—counsel or solicitors or litigants should be subject to such conditions. If it is raining one must almost physically break a way into court through a mass of strapping gardaí in wet overcoats and the rather haggard and disillusioned public waiting for a case to come up. We do not consider it proper that all these people should be at such a disadvantage and we call on the Minister to deal urgently with the problem.
We believe that court pleadings should be shortened—we have said this before—in the interests of cost, speed and increased efficiency. The present court procedure particularly in the case of the High Court is too complex, or not so much complex as lengthy and, to a great extent, unnecessary. We believe an examination of the jury system is desirable so as to consider (a) reducing the size of the jury, (b) increasing allowances for jury service and (c) extending eligibility for jury service, using the basis of the electoral register and the possible increase in fines for absenteeism.
We are in the time of women's lib and women are properly coming to the fore in the community and we believe that women should be asked to serve on juries. I see no reason why they should not.
There may be areas of this Estimate on which I have not touched as spokesman on Justice but the Department has a very wide area and one cannot deal with all aspects of it; otherwise, one could be here until tomorrow and I am sure Deputies would wish to be saved from my speaking until tomorrow. However, it is my intention to bring a number of matters to the Minister's attention before concluding. Will the Minister say in regard to the Garda pensioners what he proposes to do in regard to the question of full parity. There are other national problems to be dealt with but we feel the Garda pensioners deserve the best possible treatment we can give them. When the Fianna Fáil party were in Government they did not do too badly by the Garda pensioners. We have seen no significant sign in this regard from the present Government, even of their awareness of the situation. I do not want to be contentious on this matter—on the contrary—but we would ask the Minister to introduce full parity for Garda pensioners as a matter of urgency. The number of these men is unhappily diminishing and we would ask the Minister to consider their very reasonable case as soon as possible.
In the recent past the Minister announced the creation of the post of Director of Public Prosecutions. I am critical of the Government Information Service from time to time but I would like to thank them and the Minister for the facility of allowing me to have copies of the Minister's speeches and of any judgment the Minister may wish to hand down on occasions in his capacity as Minister for Justice. We certainly appreciate this very much and hope it will continue. It keeps us up to date with the Minister's thinking and is helpful. In one of these handouts from the Government Information Service it was stated that the Attorney General had at the request of the Taoiseach carried out an examination of certain aspects of the present system of the prosecution of crime and had reported thereon to the Taoiseach. After considering this report, it states, the Government have decided on the creation by statute of a Director of Public Prosecutions who shall be authorised to perform and discharge the functions and duties relating to the prosecution of crime which can, at the present time, be performed and discharged by the Attorney General.
The next sentence is the really important one, apart from the preceding paragraph:
The Government are very conscious of the necessity for the establishment of a system for the prosecution of crime that is not only free from political influence, but is manifestly so, and they believe that the establishment of an office for the direction of prosecutions would help to enhance public confidence in the administration of the law....
The Government propose to ensure that the making of representations to the Attorney General, State Solicitors, members of the Garda Síochaná and others officially concerned in relation to criminal matters shall cease.
Hear, hear to that. It goes on:
The making of similar representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions will likewise not be acceptable. The proposed legislation will include provisions for this purpose.
The third paragraph deals with the assignment of counsel. I am sure the Minister will assign counsel on a nonpolitical basis and on ability and merit. That should be the criterion. That is not the position which prevails at present. The Government have ruthlessly removed from the list of prosecutors the known members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Law Library. We regard that as unfortunate. It is difficult for me to articulate that particular point but I believe, as spokesman on Justice for the Opposition, I have an obligation and duty to point out that there is either a merit system or a patronage system and we believe on this side of the House that the patronage system does exist in the law. The Attorney General in the first flush of enthusiasm said he would do away with the system of giving State briefs on the basis of political affiliation. We believed the Attorney General then but we certainly do not believe him now. His words have been proved to be very wrong. If a patronage system exists, say so. Do not pretend it does not exist. It does exist.
We would hope that the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions will bring to an end the patronage system in this respect. The Attorney General has obviously carried out his survey on the need for such an appointment. The Minister might consider telling the House in his reply who he intends to appoint to the office of Director of Public Prosecutions. Is it intended to appoint the person through the Civil Service Commission? Is it intended to advertise the post in the public media? Is it intended to appoint a lawyer or a public servant? That is a simple question requiring a simple answer and there can be no prevarication on it. We would like to know the Government's intent, and it is a pious intent at the moment because it does not exist, that in discharging the responsibilities of office political considerations will play no part. Unfortunately, political considerations do play a part at the moment and there is no gainsaying that. We would hope that the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions will bring to an end political patronage in the dispensation of State work. The Minister might fill us in on how State counsel will be appointed after the Director of Public Prosecutions has been appointed.
The director, I am sure, will take on that task but it would be interesting to hear the whole area of the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions outlined in this House. Perhaps the Minister would do so. The present Government have a habit of coming out and saying something is going to be done and leaving many questions unanswered. It would help me, as spokesman on Justice, if they articulated more clearly and were more specific in their announcement in this respect.
The failure of a person who was convicted of murder to return to Mountjoy after a day's parole on 13th January of this year was a matter of considerable concern to this side of the House, concern, first of all, that this individual, who was convicted of murder in 1964, did not return to prison and that he was abroad and, secondly, concern about the conflicting statements from the Department of Justice on the one hand and the Garda Síochána on the other. The Garda described him as dangerous. The Department came out with a mea culpa statement. They said:
It is the norm, not the exception, that persons who are convicted of murder and given the statutory sentence of life imprisonment are released after a number of years.
Of course, they tried to prevent any blame attaching to the present Government for anything to do with the malfunctioning of the parole system in this respect. They went on to say:
This has been the policy of every Government since the establishment of the State.
It is standard practice, here as in other countries, that such a prisoner, or any long-term prisoner, should before release be allowed to re-adjust gradually to normal life by being given parole on a gradually increasing basis, escorted at first and then without escort.
We accept that that is a proper and humane way for a person to be gradually reintroduced into society. What we cannot understand and what has remained unexplained are the conflicting statements from the Department of Justice and the Garda Síochána. Perhaps the Minister will explain this.
On the matter of the tribunal which the Minister intends to set up, I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for sending me the document of the full scheme of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted. It is a helpful document and sets out very clearly and concisely what the intentions are. Again, it comes back to the Minister's speech and the fact that the Minister is continuing the work done and the plans laid by his predecessor. The Minister's speech reveals very little new thinking since the last Estimate was introduced by his predecessor on 12th and 13th April, 1972. That is the last time the Minister for Justice of this country had an opportunity of setting out a programme for the area under his jurisdiction. We consider the Minister's speech to contain no new thought, to be full of matter left over from his predecessor. The way the announcement about this tribunal on compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted was made in the newspapers one would imagine that this was something new, that this was something this Government thought up themselves, that they worked out the scheme and so on. It was presented as if the Coalition grouping were introducing something new. The thinking was not new.
It was there for a considerable length of time before the present Minister announced it. In fact, it was there in Deputy Des O'Malley's time, the former Minister for Justice. This was confirmed in a letter I received from the Minister's private secretary. I hope the private secretary will not think I am being unfair in any way. I do not mean to be critical; quite the contrary. In my position as spokesman on Justice I find, in relations between myself and the officials of the Department of Justice, nothing but good. I think I will be forgiven just for quoting this; it is a direct quote to support my contention that the Minister's Estimate Speech reveals no new thinking. In fact, one might consider that, in a number of areas the Minister is dragging his feet. On the matter of the Kilbarrack prison we have asked the Minister to assure the House that this prison will be forthcoming. On the matter of the new courts complex there now seems to be some doubt in that area. That is why we say that the Minister's speech is not gauged, as it were, to giving us any new heart. Just to prove and substantiate what I am saying, this scheme of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted is presented by the present Government, through the Government Information Services and so on, as if it were their thinking, their scheme; it is anything but.
I now quote the letter of the 8th February, 1974, sent to me by the Minister's private secretary:
Dear Deputy Andrews,
I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Mr. P. Cooney, T.D., to enclose, for your information, copy of the scheme for the payment of compensation to persons who suffer loss as a result of personal injury arising from crimes of violence.
The scheme was laid on the table of the House yesterday morning——
which meant, of course, that every Deputy got it——
the Minister's intention being that he would then refer to it in his opening speech on the Estimates which he expected would be made later yesterday. As the opportunity to refer to it did not arise yesterday, the Minister decided that, to assist Deputies and other interested persons, some explanatory note should, instead, be issued and I enclose a copy of the statement that was issued last night.
All very good; all very proper.
As the Minister has already stated in the House, the scheme is in accord with the general principles that had been approved and announced in the House by the previous Government. It is, however, wider in its coverage in one respect——
and the scheme sets out 31 points——
viz. that whereas (in order to exclude a multiplicity of small claims) the previous Government's decision was that losses below £100 would be excluded, the corresponding provision in the approved scheme excludes only losses below £50.
That, I think, is indicative of the matter I mentioned; that, in fact, the Minister's speech is really not earth shattering in its original thought. I am supported in my view on the basis of the letter I received from the Department of Justice.
On the matter of the Ban-Gharda, the Minister has made regulations which revoke the statutory provision that a ban-gharda should retire on marriage. A member of the force may in future, if she so wishes, continue to serve in the Garda Síochána after her marriage. At present there are 28 women members of the force; five ban-sergeants and 23 ban-ghardaí. It seems to me to be a rather low figure for women in the Garda Síochána. I would call on young women to consider the possibility of becoming members of this respected force. I welcome the Minister's decision which revokes the statutory provision that a ban-gharda should retire on marriage. I think there is general acceptance in all areas of public endeavour and the public service generally that when one gets married one does not cease suddenly to lose one's qualifications. Therefore, if one is a typist on the day of one's wedding one need not necessarily cease being a typist; one should possibly go back and take up the job where one left off. That is a proper piece of thinking. For instance, why should a person who has been in the ban-gharda, a single girl, six or seven years working there, be lost to the Garda Síochána? I think it is a welcome and worthwhile decision that if, after six, seven, eight, nine or ten years a girl in the ban-gharda gets married, her experience should not be lost to the force.
There is another point I want to make before concluding. It is the matter of the information for persons in custody. Again, the Minister—with the compliments of the Department of Justice and through the Government Information Service—sent me a note stating that notices advising persons in custody of their rights have been sent to the Garda Síochána throughout the country. The notices will be displayed in each station. Leaflets containing similar information will also be handed to persons taken into custody. The information given in the leaflets and notices outlines a person's rights in relation to bail, visits from a solicitor, a family member or friend, refreshments, legal aid, the taking of fingerprints and the holding of identification parades. In my view, there is too much in the notice. There is the question of bail, the question of facilities and, as I said, refreshments. There is too much in it. But, under the heading of legal aid, this is dealt with on application to the court and may be granted in certain circumstances.
I do not wish that every Garda station in the country be littered with notices setting out the rights of citizens but there are some rights which I think should be clearly stated. We are concerned particularly with the right to legal aid for young persons. Young persons come into court. They are extremely nervous. If they are not properly represented, through no fault of the presiding judge—just for the sake of even getting out of the atmosphere of the court—they may commit themselves to saying something which, in the normal way, they would be protected against saying by proper legal representation. That is why we consider that the legal aid notices in particular should be uplifted from the information to persons in custody posted in Garda stations and that it should be given particular prominence. We believe that, given proper representation, a person has a fair chance of presenting a good case for himself or herself. From proper representation stems the whole life force of the legal system. A person is entitled to be protected, indeed, from himself, perhaps, from his lack of knowledge, again through no fault of his own. The notice is a very good idea and very welcome but we feel the legal aid aspect of it should be uplifted and given special prominence.
Perhaps the Minister would give the figures—he did not in his Estimates speech—for the amount of money set aside for legal aid for criminal cases which is not utilised. In fact, if I were to say it is not half utilised, I might be nearer the mark. This is a very sad commentary, I think, on the legal aid system. It is non-functioning. We believe that every penny of legal aid in criminal cases should be taken up. We add, once more, the plea that legal aid in civil cases, particularly in relation to family matters, should be forthcoming as a matter of urgency. We believe that and we would support the Minister in anything he might do in that respect.
The Minister said that the matter of ground rents is to be dealt with in a comprehensive piece of legislation. If a survey were made of recipients of ground rents, one might find that nearly all of those recipients live in Ireland. They are building societies, insurance companies and so on. Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1967, provides that those who hold land, as defined therein, are entitled to acquire the fee simple in the land compulsorily. In broader terms, those who are entitled to acquire it are (1) those holding under a building lease (2) those who hold a proprietary lease— (1) and (2) as defined in the Reversal of Leases Act, 1958—(3) a lease for a term of not less than 99 years which reserves a yearly rent of an amount less than the PLV (4) a person whose predecessors in title have been continuously in occupation of the land as yearly tenants for the previous 25 years and who hold the land at a rent less than the PLV.
We contend that this Act sets out clearly the procedure for the acquisition of the fee simple. In 1967 the going rate for the fee simple was about 15 years' purchase of the rent. Because of inflation this rate has now dropped to ten or 11 years' purchase. Basically that is the history of the acquisition of ground rent as it stands at the moment. The Minister mentioned that he intends bringing in more comprehensive legislation in this respect. We look forward to seeing what this legislation contains. We believe that fundamentally ground rents are a penal tax to the extent that there is no apparent consideration from the landlord to the tenant, the benefit is unilateral and, therefore, has no merit except to the recipient. The tenant, as I have said, receives no apparent service in return.
As a responsible Opposition we have a duty to point out that any move by the State to abolish ground rents would involve great expenditure as compensation to the disappropriated. It would be necessary to give these people compensation in view of the clearly defined provisions of the Constitution. We do not like the idea of a ground rent. Our party are committed to the abolition of rates on houses but I cannot commit our party on ground rents because we have not yet formulated a full document. We are researching the matter very thoroughly and will have a position paper ready in the not-too-distant future. We would be glad to discuss this paper with interested groups. To date we have had meetings with a number of groups concerned with ground rents.
The Government have been silent on this problem. We look forward, as do other groups, to hearing their views on a matter of such national importance. What are the Government's views on the social desirability of ground rents? We would ask them to conduct a survey on this question. They have the whole State paraphernalia at their back. There is no reason why they should not conduct a survey as to the amount which would be required to compensate landlords or those holding ground rents who would be dispossessed. This might not be possible, but if so we should be told. The Minister might consider answering the questions on the social desirability of ground rents and the amount of compensation which would be required to pay those landlords who might be dispossessed of their ground rents.
On 14th November, 1973, I asked a question which is reported in the Official Report of that date at columns 1858 to 1859: I quote:
Mr. Andrews asked the Minister for Justice the number of occasions on which the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure has reported; and the title of each such report.
Mr. Cooney: The answer is in the form of a statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report.
The Committee on Court Practice and Procedure have submitted 18 interim reports to date as follows:—
First Interim Report: The Preliminary Investigation of Indictable Offences.
This has been dealt with.
Second Interim Report: Jury Service.
To be considered.
Third Interim Report: Jury Trial in Civil Actions.
To be considered.
Fourth Interim Report: Jury Challenges.
Fifth Interim Report: Increase of Jurisdiction of the District Court and the Circuit Court.
This has been dealt with.
Sixth Interim Report: The Criminal Jurisdiction of the High Court.
This has not been dealt with.
Seventh Interim Report: Appeals from Conviction on Indictment.
I believe, and I am subject to correction, that part of that may have been dealt with.
Eighth Interim Report:
(1) Service of Court Documents by post.
(2) Fees of Professional Witnesses.
This has been dealt with.
Ninth Interim Report: Proof of Previous Convictions.
Is this the Criminal Justice Bill?
Tenth Interim Report: Interest Rate on Judgment Debts.
This has been partly dealt with.
Eleventh Interim Report: The Jurisdiction and Practice of the Supreme Court.
This is to be considered.
Twelfth Interim Report: Courts Organisation.
I have already mentioned the concern of this party for the physical aspects of courts generally and for the reorganisation of the courts.
Thirteenth Interim Report: The Solicitor's Right of Audience.
Fourteenth Interim Report: Liability of Barristers and Solicitors for Professional Negligence.
This is to be considered.
Fifteenth Interim Report: On the Spot Fines.
It was reported in the newspapers that on the spot fines will be introduced in the not-too-distant future.
