Limerick East): I move:
That a sum not exceeding £14,350,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1983, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, and of certain other services administered by that Office, and of the Public Record Office, and of the Keeper of State Papers and for the purchase of historical documents, etc., and for payment of a grant-in-aid.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose that all the Votes for which I am responsible be taken together. I shall, of course, endeavour to answer questions on any of the Votes.
The total of the Estimates for the Votes for which I am responsible is £276,574,000 made up as follows:—
Vote 21: Office of the Minister for Justice, £14,350,000; Vote 22: Garda Síochána, £205,410,000; Vote 23: Prisons, £43,733,000; Vote 24: Courts, £7,679,000; Vote 25: Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, £5,293,000; Vote 26: Charitable Donations and Bequests, £109,000. This total of £276,574,000 compares with a total provisional outturn for these six Votes of £253,014,000 in 1982, an increase of 9.3 per cent.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words concerning the various areas for which I, as Minister for Justice, have responsibility.
First of all, I would like to deal with the Garda. As Deputies will be aware, we availed ourselves of the opportunity of the recent passage of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Bill to have a wide-ranging debate on crime and related matters. In winding up the debate on 4 May 1983 I made a detailed statement on the general crime situation, including relations between the Garda and the community, Government policy in relation to the force and the various measures being taken by the Garda to deal with criminal activity and drugs offences in particular. To go over the same ground again so soon in the same detail would be repetitious and, accordingly, I propose to confine myself today to some brief remarks on our crime problem.
Unfortunately, we are living in an era when, in common with countries the world over, the incidence of crime has greatly increased. It is quite evident that there is now less respect among a section of our population for the rule of law than formerly. It may well be that the deterioration in the law and order situation is linked with the apparent weakening of the traditional values and beliefs held by the citizens of this country. The social restraints that were part and parcel of life previously are not now so readily accepted.
The losses which the individual victims of crime have to bear and the costs which fall on the general public, particularly as a result of vandalism, are enormous. Fires, damage to cars and destruction of public and private property are the main features of acts of vandalism carried out by a small minority against the community. Apart from the actual losses directly suffered as a result of crime and vandalism, the cost of the various State services involved in combating the criminal is a severe burden on the community, particularly at the present time when the difficulties arising from the economic situation are causing such strain to the Exchequer. Public funds are being drained in this wasteful and destructive way when they are so badly needed for the health and welfare of our people and for the provision of jobs.
Too often it is the weaker sections of our society — the old, the infirm and the very young — who are the victims of crime. Increased crime is said to be a characteristic of social change and increasing urbanisation, but no matter what reasons are advanced there can be no justification for the violence and viciousness being inflicted on society by the criminal and the vandal.
The Garda are doing everything in their power to combat crime, but they need the help of the general public if they are to be successful. It must be remembered that everyone has a role to play in the maintenance of law and order. The Garda have a difficult task to do and I am sure that Members of the House would wish to join me in expressing appreciation of their good work.
I will now go on to deal with the financial provisions of the Garda Vote. The overall provision in the Vote is £205,410,000. The major items included in this figure are as follows:— £158.5 million for salaries and allowances, including overtime; almost £24 million for the pensions of former members and widows of former members of the Garda Síochána; £6.25 million for Garda transport and nearly £6 million for travelling expenses and subsistence allowances. A total of £3.5 million is provided for equipment, including radio, computer and office equipment.
The sum of £14.4 million has been provided in the Garda Vote for overtime, as compared with the provision of £18 million in 1982. Those figures by themselves are, however, misleading. Garda overtime had been escalating rapidly in the early part of 1982 but was curtailed in July last and in the later half of 1982 the level at which overtime expenditure had been running worked out on average at about £860,000 per four-week roster. The allocation for 1983 is more than sufficient to maintain that level of overtime — it is in fact sufficient to provide also a substantial sum for contingencies. When, in addition to that, it is realised that the total numbers in the Garda Síochána have been increased by over 960 since August and will continue to increase during 1983, it will be seen that Garda manpower resources will be significantly higher this year than they were in the second half of 1982.
As already announced, provision has been made in the vote for the recruitment of 700 gardaí in 1983. This is a very high level of recruitment at a time when public funds are scarce but is justified by the fact that measures to deal with the crime situation continue to be an urgent priority. There is also provision for the appointment of 100 extra sergeants this year so as to ensure that the necessary level of guidance and on-the-job training is available to the large number of gardaí who are taking up duty at stations, following completion of their initial training at the Garda Training Centre. Over 200 recruits have already been appointed this year and a further qualifying educational examination was held on 17 February. I am informed by the Civil Service Commission that the interviewing of male candidates has now been completed and that final results will be available very shortly. It is expected that actual appointments from the 1983 competition will commence next month and recruitment will continue throughout the year according as candidates become available from the medical and other preliminary examinations.
The new recruits are being assigned to the areas which in the opinion of the Garda authorities are most in need of a greater Garda presence. In practice this has meant that the majority have been assigned to the Dublin metropolitan area and other cities. Most of the new recruits assigned to city stations have been working on a revised rostering system which is designed to ensure a maximum Garda presence at times when the need for Garda services is greatest.
In addition to increasing the strength of the force steps are also being taken to ensure that the available resources are deployed to best advantage in meeting the policing needs of the community. For example, following a review of Garda deployment to take account of current needs and the current crime situation, the Commissioner has arranged to have the strength of the uniformed branch in the cities augmented as far as practicable. There has already been a general improvement in patrolling arrangements and further improvements are envisaged, according as the additional gardaí now in training and those being recruited at present become available for assignment to stations. I am confident that the increased Garda presence and the measures being taken to ensure that available resources are used to best advantage will bring about an improvement in the crime situation and respond in a positive way to the demands from the community for an improved Garda service and better protection against attacks on their person and their property.
While crime is of particular concern in our urban areas, it unfortunately affects our rural areas too and ways in which the system of rural policing might be improved are being examined. Traditional methods of policing rural areas have served us well in the past — the system whereby a Garda sergeant and a small number of gardaí looked after law and order in their own sub-district and generally made a good job of it. But the nature of crime has changed and its extent has increased — unfortunately, even our quiet rural areas are not immune from the attentions of criminals who, with modern transport at their disposal, can go from area to area committing serious crime.
This changed pattern of crime coming into areas from outside, requires a changed response from the Garda and the fact that they now have an extensive fleet of patrol cars and a system of radio communication has left them in a position to try out new strategies. It is now possible to see whether the gardaí allocated to a number of neighbouring sub-districts can combine in some way to provide an improved Garda service over their combined area and studies to see how best this might be brought about are at present under way in two pilot Garda districts — Claremorris, County Mayo and Thomastown, County Kilkenny.
The pilot schemes in operation in these two areas are being studied carefully to see how they meet the objective set for them, which is, of course, to improve in a very positive way the level of Garda service provided to the communities there. I want to make it very clear, lest there should be any doubts on the matter, that the new rural policing system which is being tried out does not involve the closing of any rural Garda station.
It is essential also to ensure that the Garda have the back-up facilities they require to carry out their duties effectively. These facilities include modern radio communications and computer systems. The Garda have recently been provided with their own computer facilities and adequate funds have been made available this year to allow for expansion of the computer service available to them.
Work is well under way on the installation of a new communications network for the Garda Síochána and a substantial part of this system will be in operation this year. This is a major project costing approximately £10 million and the Government are committed to providing the necessary finance for it. The Garda radio section has been greatly expanded to service the new network and I have very recently approved the holding of a recruitment competition for the appointment of further technicians so as to ensure that work on the installation of the new network proceeds as quickly as possible.
The total net allocation on the Prisons Vote is £43,733,000, a decrease of 1 per cent on the 1982 provisional outturn of £44,139,000.
The main portions of this allocation are devoted to expenditure on salaries, wages and allowances and to capital expenditure on the building programme for new prisons and places of detention — 58 per cent and 26 per cent respectively.
My Department's estimates on the prisons side had to be calculated against the background of the rising numbers being committed to custody and the shortage of prison places. In the cuts we imposed we succeeded in achieving the necessary balance between the need to control public expenditure and the need to provide sufficient funds for the efficient operation of the prison system and for its effective future development.
On 30 May there was a total of 1,564 Prison Service grade staff supervising 1,434 offenders in the prisons and places of detention. This gives a ratio on the day of 1.09 prison officers to each offender. It must be understood, however, that because of the need to provide 24-hour manning for certain posts and because staff numbers include management, clerical and trades staff in the various institutions the actual ratio of staff on duty to offenders at any one time is far less favourable.
Eleven officers were recently recruited to the Prison Service. These officers will be available for assignment to the prisons when they complete the 12-week induction training course which is held at the Prison Service Staff Training Centre, Everton House, Dublin. The recruitment of these officers has reduced the number of fillable vacancies to ten.
As Deputies are aware, there has been increasing pressure on accommodation in the prison system for some time now. I am glad to say that additional accommodation has recently become available.
The new wing in Cork Prison has been occupied, while Loughan House is now available as a centre for male adults. These two developments will help substantially to relieve the pressure on accommodation.
One of the major factors causing pressure on accommodation is the need in present circumstances to devote almost all of the available accommodation at two of the prisons, Portlaoise and Limerick, to cater for subversive prisoners. If these prisoners were not in custody it would be possible to accommodate about 300 non-subversive prisoners in those prisons and, in addition, a reduced number of staff would be required. A substantial Garda and Army commitment is also required at those prisons to help maintain security—which would be unnecessary in changed circumstances. I would like to pay tribute to the Garda and Army for the manner in which they have performed those duties over the past year.
I am happy, however, to say that it has proved possible to relieve the Army of one burden in relation to prisons which they had borne since 1972. I refer, of course, to the need that arose to ask the Army to hold a small number of disruptive prisioners who could not then be held in the civil prisons. A new unit, separate from the main buildings of Mountjoy Prison, has been brought into use and most of the prisoners who were in military custody are now held there along with a group who are also considered to be disruptive or high security risks from Mountjoy itself. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the manner in which the Army authorities dealt with these prisoners while they were in their care and also to compliment the Prison Service trades personnel who worked so well to make the new unit ready for the prisoners.
As the House will be aware, I have already announced that the Government have agreed in principle to the establishment of a committee of inquiry into the prison system. Staff and other interested parties will, of course, have an opportunity of submitting views to the committee in due course. As regards the compostion of the committee. I will be making a submission to the Government on this in due course. In my view the committee should be a high-powered one but I would like to keep it small—say about five members—because I believe it would be more effective that way. It might be necessary to make available to the committee certain expertise in the area of prison administration.
A total of £11.498 million has been made available to the prisons capital programme for 1983. This will enable elements of modernisation of Mountjoy Prison and of development work at Portlaoise and Limerick Prisons to be completed. It will substantially complete development of Cork, Arbour Hill, the Training Unit, Shanganagh Castle and Loughan House. It will also enable a start to be made on the custodial buildings at Wheatfield, County Dublin where site development, perimetering, service buildings and other works have been in progress since 1980.
Deputies will agree that £11.498 million is a significant allocation in the present economic situation and in 1983 and in future years it is my intention to channel as much as possible of the money that can be allocated to the prisons capital programme into providing additional custodial places, in an effort to relieve the present pressure on accommodation in the prisons and places of detention.
The Criminal Justice (Community Service) Bill, 1983, will provide the courts with an alternative sanction which they may impose in cases where they would otherwise impose a custodial sentence. This is important and progressive legislation in that the courts will be given power to order suitable offenders to do work which will be of benefit to the community rather than send them to prison. The provision of facilities in the community for offenders on probation is also being developed. Already several probation hostels, workshops and day centres have been established by my Department's Probation and Welfare Service in association with local voluntary committees. It is my objective to expand the provision of such facilities as much as possible as well as to improve the facilities available for the after-care of prisoners who volunteer for supervision.
In furtherance of this, the provision for grants to voluntary committees who operate these facilities has been increased by 75 per cent over the 1982 outturn. The capital provision for the acquisition of premises for probation and after-care related facilities has been increased by 19 per cent. I believe that expenditure in this area is extremely cost-effective and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the voluntary committees who operate the various centres and without whose co-operation the progress so far achieved would not have been possible.
I come now to the area of my Department's responsibilities relating to the courts, the overall provision for which is £7,679,000 in 1983—an increase of 10 per cent on the 1982 provision. Broadly outlined these responsibilities range from the preparation and promotion of any necessary legislation governing the establishment, constitution, jurisdictions, and functioning of our courts to ensuring that, as far as practicable, all courts and court offices are enabled to function effectively.
As Deputies will no doubt be aware the major jurisdictional changes provided in the Courts Act, 1981, which were due to come into operation on 12 May, 1982, have only recently become effective following the settlement of the long-running industrial dispute involving staff in the Circuit and District Courts. I am glad that this dispute has been settled as I am very well aware of the inconvenience and hardship occasioned for litigants, particularly in the family law area. At this early stage it is not possible to assess the effects of the jurisdictional changes made but the situation will be closely monitored.
A matter of particular concern to me at present is the large number of High Court jury actions awaiting hearing. Last year the President of the High Court, in an effort to reduce the back-log, arranged special jury sittings of the High Court at Nass and Trim at which the oldest cases in the Dublin list were offered trial. He is making similar arrangements this year.
While measures like this help to contain the problem, elimination of arrears in the High Court as a whole is to a great extent dependent on the provision of additional jury courtrooms at the Four Courts. Plans are now well advanced for the provision of two such extra courtrooms in accommodation which will shortly be freed by moving some High Court Offices out of the Four Courts Building to an office block at Dolphin House, the former Dolphin Hotel in Essex Street. It is hoped that the Office of Public Works will be in a position to commence work on the conversion of this accommodation shortly and that the new courtrooms will be available early in the new year.
In Cork the delay in hearing High Court jury actions has, in recent times, become somewhat more serious than elsewhere and as a result, I understand, the President of the High Court proposes to increase the number of sitting days in Cork by some 50 per cent during the forthcoming legal year, which is due to commence on 3 October next.
While there are some delays in hearing cases at other major centres at which High Court jury actions are held they are not as serious as the delays in Dublin and in Cork and the President has decided not to increase the numbers of sitting days at those venues.
In July of 1982 a new jurisdiction was conferred on the District Court by the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982. This was, of course, in addition to the new family law jurisdiction and extended civil jurisdiction given to the Court in the 1981 Courts Act. As was to be expected in Dublin, in particular, the new rent jurisdiction has resulted in a very heavy workload and it became necessary to appoint two additional temporary justices to the District Court so that the full time of two justices could be made available to the rent courts.
These courts were first set up in November 1982 in premises in Harcourt Road and they were moved to Dolphin House in February of this year when accommodation became available there.
Up to 31 May 1982 the rent courts in Dublin had made 589 orders under the Act while, outside Dublin a total of 263 orders were made between 26 July 1982, when the Act came into force, and 9 May 1983, the latest date for which figures are available.
A computer has been acquired to help the Metropolitan District Court staff to cope with increasing work volumes and is already printing, issuing and processing most of the summonses for Dublin City. This facility will be gradually extended and will, increasingly, bring about speedier and more effective enforcement of the law in the Dublin District Court.
Regarding the operation of the courts, one of the greatest problems continues to be accommodation. Responsibility for the provision and maintenance of court accommodation, with certain exceptions in the Dublin area, is vested by law in local authorities. This has given rise to particular problems in a number of areas and most Deputies will be familiar with problems of this kind in their own areas. However, there have been improvements in a number of cases. The reinstatement of Waterford Courthouse was completed last autumn and Wicklow County Council expect to go ahead with the provision of a new courthouse in Bray shortly. Several local authorities are considering quite extensive repairs and improvements to a number of court-houses and others are dealing with less extensive works on an ongoing basis. Naturally, progress in this area is affected by the current financial situation.
In Dublin the Four Courts Hotel site which has been acquired by the Office of Public Works will be developed as an office block to accommodate the various court offices at present housed in the Four Courts building, thus freeing further areas there for development as additional courtrooms and ancillary accommodation. While the planning phase has been brought to an advanced stage, it has not yet been possible to proceed to the invitation of tenders for the construction work due to the continuing adverse financial situation but I am hopeful that resources can be provided for this in the coming year.
In the meantime, in order to satisfy the immediate requirements for additional court accommodation on a temporary basis, additional courtrooms have been provided in Dolphin House at Essex Street. Apart from the two rents courts I have mentioned already, this building also houses a new District Court family court and District Court traffic court as well as a Circuit family court. The building became available for occupation early this year and court sittings are currently being held there. Unfortunately, these premises are not, for technical reasons, suitable for adaptation as jury courts and could not be availed of to provide the relief so urgently required by the High Court.
The situation of the Children's Court in Dublin is a matter of some concern. The accommodation available to the court has been unsatisfactory for some years now and the position deteriorated in November 1981 when the Dublin Castle premises were declared unsafe. The court is at present accommodated on a temporary basis in the Morgan Place wing of the Four Courts. The Office of Public Works have explored the suitability of a number of premises as permanent accommodation for the Children's Court without success and they are currently studying the feasibility of building a new Children's Court on a site at Smithfield. I am aware of the urgency of finding a solution to the problem of providing suitable accommodation for the Children's Court and I am urgently exploring possible solutions. This is obviously a matter of great concern and one that needs priority treatment.
The 1983 provision for civil legal aid is £1.305 million. Deputies will be generally aware that, due to the financial constraints affecting all services, that provision, while being an increase on the grant of £1.21 million paid to the board in 1982, did not make any provision for significant expansion of the board's services — at any rate such expansion as would enable the board to open any new law centres in 1983. However, since the beginning of the year, the board have set up additional part-time "clinic" service in Dundalk, Carlow, Kilkenny and Tralee. These are serviced from existing law centres. I understand that the board have tentative plans to open further "clinic" services during the year at Athlone, Clonmel and Ennis.
The 1983 estimates for criminal legal aid include an increase of £0.6 million on the 1982 figure of £1.25 million. There are three main reasons for this increase, firstly, the cost of paying value-added tax, currently at 23 per cent on legal fees payable under the scheme — this is ultimately recouped to the Exchequer — secondly, the cost in 1983 of an increase of 7.5 per cent in solicitors' District Court fees granted in 1982 and thirdly, the increased volume of business in the courts. In the context of the latter, it should be noted that legal aid in criminal cases is now regarded as a constitutional right in certain circumstances.
Deputies will be aware that the Minister for Justice has a special position in relation to the law and its reform, more so perhaps than any other Minister of the Government, since I have responsibility for a fairly wide area of the law. A particular difficulty presents itself, one to which my predecessors have drawn attention on occasions such as this. As the Ceann Comhairle will confirm, it is not in order for a Deputy to advocate legislation in an Estimates debate. Accordingly, even if it were within the rules of this House for me to make a statement in relation to any particular item of legislation for which I have responsibility, it would be inappropriate since Deputies would not have the opportunity to deal with the matter. I will, therefore, say no more on the subject of law reform other than that legislative proposals which I have under consideration will be brought to the notice of the House in the usual way when I am in a position to announce them.
During the Seventies the intake of work in the Land Registry increased at an average annual rate of about 10 per cent. The pattern of increase was maintained in 1980 and accelerated to 18 per cent in 1981. There was a decrease of 7 per cent in 1982 as compared with 1981 but in the first five months of 1983 there was an increase of 3 per cent as compared with the corresponding period in 1982.
The work of the Land Registry may broadly be divided into four main categories, as follows:
(1) Applications for changes in, or additional, registration in respect of property already registered;
(2) Applications for first registration, including the establishment of title acquired by possession;
(3) Applications for land certificates, copies of folios, instruments and maps; and
(4) Administration of the ground rents purchase scheme which came into operation for a five-year period commencing on 1 August 1978 and which is being extended for a further year to 31 July 1984.
There are about 85,000 applications a year in the first category. The position in so far as these are concerned is satisfactory; applications are processed within an average time scale of about two months.
The number of applications in the second category is small at about 5,000 a year. These applications involve detailed and complex examination of title and often protracted correspondence with solicitors, as well as the issue of statutory notices to interested parties which usually gives rise to further correspondence. It is difficult to be precise about average delays but they are unlikely to be less than 12 months. While of their nature these cases cannot usually be completed quickly, the level of delay is not satisfactory. Proposals for a radical reorganisation of the processing of these applications have been prepared for some time but because the Land Registry, in common with the Civil Service generally, is subject to the embargo on the creation of new posts and the filling of vacancies, the proposals cannot be implemented at present. I intend to do all I can to facilitate their implementation. In the meantime, all that can be done by the Land Registry to speed up the processing of the applications under the existing system is being done. Also, because in many cases delays are caused by incompleteness in the submission of applications to the Land Registry, the Incorporated Law Society propose to hold a series of seminars for solicitors, which will be attended by Land Registry officials, with the aim of eliminating or at least reducing the need for time-consuming correspondence.
Land certificates and copies of documents and maps, applications for which total about 125,000 a year, are usually available within less than two weeks — in most cases within a week. Copies of folios with file plans attached are now being issued in response to all applications for copy maps.
A programme of computerisation of the Land Registry folios commenced in December 1982. There are about 1,100,000 existing folios to be computerised and about 40,000 new folios are being opened annually. Present indications are that the programme will take at least ten years to complete. However, the benefits are cumulative and are increasing on a daily basis as the implementation programme progresses. For instance, in the case of a folio which has been computerised, a member of the public may inspect the folio on a visual display unit at a public counter in the registry and may, if he wishes, obtain a copy of the folio within a matter of minutes. It is already clear that the efficiency of the registry is being progressively improved as the computerisation programme develops.
Overall, the position in the Land Registry, with the exception of the relatively small category of first registration applications, is satisfactory and I intend to make every effort to see that it remains so and indeed to effect whatever improvements in the service I can.
A package of reorganisation proposals in the Registry of Deeds has been prepared and is at present under consideration. These proposals include the integration of the staff structures of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds and the computerisation of some of the Registry of Deeds records. I hope that it will be possible to proceed with the proposals at an early date.
The fees charged for services in both the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds are set at a level sufficient to enable both offices to be self-supporting. The most recent fees orders have been operative from 1 December 1981 in the case of the Land Registry and 1 February 1983 in the case of the Registry of Deeds.
My other areas of responsibility include the Public Record Office, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, Censorship of Films and Publications, Aliens' Control and Charitable Donations and Bequests. I do not intend to comment on them now but I shall endeavour to answer any questions that Deputies may wish to ask.
