Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 4

Estimates, 1988. - Vote 20: Office of the Minister for Justice.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Reynolds)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £17,814,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, and of certain other services administered by that Office, and for payment of a grant-in-aid.

I am moving this Estimate on behalf of the Minister for Justice who is attending the Anglo-Irish Conference in Belfast today, and I propose that the six Votes, 20 to 25, inclusive, be taken together.

The total Estimate for the six Votes in the Justice Group is £366,761,000, a decrease of £6,907,000 or 1.88 per cent below the Estimate for these Votes in 1987. The Estimate is made up as follows:

	£
Vote 20 — Office of the Minister for Justice	17,814,000
Vote 21 — Garda Síochána	273,053,000
Vote 22 — Prisons	57,561,00
Vote 23 — Courts	11,246,000
Vote 24 — Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	6,983,000
Vote 25 — Charitable Donations and Bequests	104,000

Pay and allowances, etc., account for 82 per cent of the total Estimates and show an increase of 1 per cent compared with 1987.

The net provision for the Garda Síochána Vote for 1988 is £273.053 million. Salaries, allowances and overtime account for over £205 million of this amount and the superannuation provision is £41.6 million. The other major items are £9.67 million for travelling, subsistence, compensation and miscellaneous expenses; £7.65 million for Garda transport; £5.93 million for the purchase, rental and maintenance of radio, computer, office and other equipment; £5.52 million for postal and telecommunications services and £2.25 million for uniforms and accessories.

The overall financial allocation for the Garda Síochána this year represents an increase of 1 per cent over the 1987 allocation. While the allocations under some individual headings show a reduction as compared with last year, I must emphasise that, in deciding on the financial allocations that could be made for all the various services, the Government took particular account of the vital importance of the Garda service to the community. The financial provision made for the force reflects the Government's concern with preserving that service to the greatest possible extent.

The provision for salaries and allowances takes account of the application to the Garda Síochána of the restrictions on public service numbers announced in the 1987 budget. However, even in these times of necessary economic stringencies, the Government have shown their commitment to the Garda Síochána by their proposal to make 1,000 appointments over the three-year period 1989 to 1991 from a recruitment competition to be held later this year. This competition heralds a new era in Garda recruitment in that new entry qualifications and recruitment procedures and a radical new training programme are being introduced. Briefly, candidates will be required to have achieved an educational standard of at least Grade D in five subjects in the Leaving Certificate or equivalent, including Irish, English and Mathematics. Candidates will have to undergo an intelligence test and final selection will be by means of a competitive interview.

The new Garda training programme gives effect to the recommendations of the Walsh Committee on Garda Training. Under the new programme training will be ongoing over a period of two years. In that time recruits will spend 42 weeks in all the training centres in Templemore and the balance of their time undergoing on-the-job training at selected stations. There will be an emphasis during training on the development of practical policing skills and recruits will also be given some grounding in the basics of criminology, behavioural science, psychology, public relations, communications, social science and management skills. It is expected that details of the proposed Garda recruitment competition will be announced shortly.

The reduced allocation for Garda overtime reflects the decision to abolish the 15 minute pre-duty "parading time" in the Dublin Metropolitan area and in the cities of Cork, Limerick and Waterford and to re-roster certain specialist groups in the force. As the Minister has previously indicated to the House, the Garda authorities are satisfied that none of these changes will seriously affect the effectiveness of the force.

While the maximum economies have to be made in all areas of expenditure on the Garda Síochána, specific reductions have been made in the provisions for uniforms and transport. The provision of £2.25 million for uniforms shows a reduction of £0.25 million over the 1987 allocation. The particularly high allocations for Garda uniforms in 1986 and 1987 allowed for the introduction of the new Garda uniform. The provision of £7.65 million for Garda transport requirements reflects a reduction of £250,000 for the purchase of vehicles and a small reduction in the provision for maintenance and running expenses having regard to the reduced price of petrol. I am satisfied that these savings can be achieved without any serious effect on Garda resources.

Notwithstanding the present difficult economic situation, the necessary resources are being made available to enable the modern technological facilities required by the Garda to be provided. The new national communications network was planned and designed specifically to meet Garda requirements. The rural part of the network is operating very effectively in all Garda stations outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area and a sophisticated new radio communications system for the Dublin Metropolitan area is planned to come into operation later this year. Approximately £20 million was spent on the Garda communications network system until the end of last year. A further £3.5 million is being provided this year and this amount is sufficient to meet all the commitments which will arise at this stage of the project.

The Garda also have modern computer facilities at their disposal. These facilities continue to be improved and there is provision of £1.083 million in the 1988 Estimate to allow for further development in the Garda computer systems.

As the House is aware, the Garda Commissioner recently made a number of proposals for changes in organisation and procedures in the Garda Síochána and the Minister has approved these proposals. Collectively they will have a significant impact on Garda performance. The Minister has also recently announced the establishment of a Garda Advisory Group. This group will act as a source of advice to the Minister on Garda matters in relation to which professional skills and expertise, drawn from outside the Garda Síochána, can be expected to be of particular value.

I hope that the various measures to which I have referred will underline the fact that every effort is being made to ensure that Garda resources are deployed as effectively as possible in meeting our policing needs and that the potential of these resources is tapped to the full. Overall, I am satisfied that all essential policing needs are being fully met and I am confident that the Garda Síochána will continue to respond in a very positive way to the many demands on their services.

The problem of crime is a matter of constant concern to the Government. We must never sit back and say we have reached an acceptable level of crime. We must recognise that crime is an inevitable feature of a modern democratic society and indeed it features in our society at a low rate by international standards. We have to accept it as a price to be paid for democracy and concentrate our minds on it as a problem which will always be with us, albeit in different forms and different degrees.

The Garda authorities have shown over the years their commitment and ability to handle the various forms, and the at one stage extremely worrying level, of crime in our society. The level of recorded indictable crime at the end of 1987 had in fact decreased by over 17 per cent since 1983 and in that period we have had to contend with the emergence of various disturbing forms of crime such as drug abuse, attacks on the elderly, joy-riding and armed raids. Such crimes have been and are being successfully controlled by a combination of Government initiatives and special operational measures and, as a result, the statistics for the end of 1987 indicate that the incidence of all these types of crime has dropped significantly over the past few years.

However, we cannot become complacent. The crime fighters' work is never done. Indeed this prompts me to make reference to the recent publicity in the news media about an increase in crime in the first four months of this year. It certainly is important that any increase in crime is carefully monitored and analysed and the necessary and appropriate steps taken to counter any problem that emerges. However, crime is too big a concern for us to permit of a rash response and we must, therefore, be careful not to react inappropriately, particularly when inaccurate statistics are quoted.

The Garda Commissioner in a press statement gave the correct figures for the first four months of the year, an increase of 3.5 per cent for the entire country, representing a 9.13 per cent increase in the Dublin area and a decrease of 4.9 per cent elsewhere. The Garda authorities are monitoring the situation closely and are responding and will respond actively where special measures prove necessary. However, I would be at pains to emphasise that statistics relating to incidence of crime over short periods of time are only of very limited value as indicators of long term tends and indeed the preliminary indications are that the level of recorded indictable crime for the country as a whole for the first five months of this year is broadly in line with that for the corresponding period last year.

However, we must be realistic in the role we expect the Garda to play in the fight against crime. The Garda cannot provide round-the-clock protection for every home and every business in the country but they can help by encouraging the community to take appropriate steps to help themselves. This the Garda do by offering crime prevention advice to the public, encouraging such basic precautions as ensuring doors and windows have adequate locks, that homes and cars are not left unlocked and unattended and that large amounts of cash are not carried. The Garda have also encouraged increased community involvement in crime prevention by way of initiatives such as neighbourhood watch. This particular success story continues to grow and there are now almost 600 neighbourhood watch schemes involving 145,000 households in existence throughout the country. That the operation is a success appears evident from the growth in the number of participating households. However, the schemes are being formally evaluated to assess their impact on crime.

I turn now to the Prisons Vote. About three-quarters of the total current expenditure provided for in this Vote is in respect of subhead A which covers salaries, wages and allowances. It is obvious, therefore, that in attempting to control expenditure on this Vote particular attention must be paid to staff costs.

When speaking in the Estimates debate last year, the Minister informed the House that he was not happy with the level of dependence on overtime working inherent in the operation of the prison system and that this was an area to which he intended to pay special attention.

In 1986 overtime working in the prison service cost £13.4 million and, while this was partly explained by staff shortages in the light of the increase of 50 per cent or so in the number of prisoners in custody since 1982, successive Ministers for Justice had also recognised that inherent defects in the rostering arrangements were also a major factor in the level of overtime working. Following the recruitment of almost 200 extra staff in late 1986 and early 1987, it was possible to eliminate much of the overtime which had been arising because of the need to cope with the increases in the numbers in custody and expenditure was reduced to £10.3 million. However, I think it will be clear that, even with that reduction, the level of overtime expenditure was still far too high.

Following a review of the matter, it was evident that further significant reductions in overtime and an increase in staff could only be efficiently achieved in the context of addressing the inherent defects in the rostering arrangements. These defects centred around the fact that the period between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the institutions — the prisoners' evening recreation period — was staffed almost exclusively on overtime. In the circumstances, when making the 1988 financial provision for the prison service, the Government decided that the overtime provision should be £6.3 million and that a further 200 extra staff should be recruited, in conjunction with the introduction of a revised rostering system.

As was previously explained, negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association on a revised roster had been taking place for over three years. By the end of January last, it became clear that there was no prospect of agreement. Clearly, the lack of agreement could not have been allowed to jeopardise the creation of jobs for 200 people. Accordingly, new rostering arrangements designed to reduce dependence on overtime were introduced in the various prisons in the earlier part of this year. The House will be aware of the opposition of the Prison Officers' Association to this approach and of the general course of subsequent developments, culminating in the withdrawal of labour by members of the Prison Officers' Association which lasted from 16 April to 14 May of this year.

The agreement between the Minister and the association which led to the settlement of the dispute essentially provided that there would be an independent review of actual rostering arrangements and that any claims in relation to compensation would be processed under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The House will appreciate the importance — in the context of control of public service pay generally — which had to be attached to maintaining the line that no special arrangements in relation to pay should be made available to the Prison Officers' Association beyond those available to other staff. Arrangements are being made for a copy of the settlement terms to be lodged in the Library of the House.

Professor Basil Chubb has been appointed to carry out the review of rostering arrangements provided for in the agreement and thanks are due to him for agreeing to undertake this work. Before moving on from this subject, I am sure the House will join with me in paying tribute to all those who contributed to the successful running of the prisons and places of detention during that dispute — in particular, the Governors and their support staff and the members of the Garda Síochána and Army. I also want to place again on record the Minister's appreciation of the efforts of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in seeking a resolution to the dispute.

Probably the most significant feature in the operation of the prisons and places of detention in recent years has been the unrelenting pressure on accommodation. Despite that pressure, however, every effort has been made to preserve — and, where possible, improve — the quality of the regimes operating at the institutions.

The House will appreciate that the actual physical quality of accommodation at the institutions is only one — albeit a very important one — of the factors which determine the nature of the overall regimes in the institutions. Other factors also have an important role to play. In this context I would refer, for example, to the provisions made for education and work training programmes in the prisons and places of detention. There are now 103 teachers — equivalent to 97 full time teachers — providing tuition to offenders. The teachers are provided mainly by vocational education committees. Basic courses in numeracy and literacy and general school subjects are given priority but social education, art, physical education, languages, woodwork, drama and music are also taught. A number of offenders are pursuing degree courses with the Open University.

The work training programmes provide industrial training and occupational activity designed to prepare offenders for employment. A variety of workshop and agricultural activities are also available, which cater for a wide range of aptitudes and interests among offenders. The importance of work training in the prisons is borne out by the fact that such programmes have been grant-aided from the European Social Fund in recent years and it is hoped that financial assistance will again be available this year.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I do so to advice him that some three minutes now remain of the time allotted to him, in accordance with the order of this House this morning.

Mr. S. Barrett

I think it would be wise if you were to let the Minister finish.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, the Chair will conform the order of the House.

Mr. Reynolds

An allocation of £235,000 is provided for education materials and equipment and £592,000 is provided for the work training programmes. I should mention that, in general, teachers' salaries are not provided for in the Prisons Vote — the cost is borne by the vocational education committees.

To return to the question of accommodation, £6 million is allocated this year for capital expenditure on prisons and places of detention. The money provides for completion of the new place of detention for 320 offenders at Wheatfield. Construction and servicing reached the stage of virtual completion on 4 February 1988. Furnishing, equipping and commissioning are currently being finalised. Apart from Wheatfield, work related to the upgrading of security services and to the improvement of facilities generally is in progress in Portlaoise, Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork, Arbour Hill, St. Patrick's Institution, Loughan House and Shelton Abbey.

In relation to the new place of detention at Wheatfield, it is expected that the question of the use which may be made of it will be brought before the Government in the very near future. While originally intended for juveniles, there have been developments since the project was initiated — such as the unprecedented rise in the overall numbers in custody and the emergence of a group of offenders identified as having AIDS antibodies — and these developments may have implications for the best use to be made of the facility at Wheatfield.

So far I have concentrated on the operation of the prisons system but it is, of course, the case that alternatives to imprisonment are a vital ingredient in the overall penal system. The Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983, which the Minister initiated and which has now been in operation since January 1985, provides that offenders can be required by the courts to perform a specified number of hours of unpaid work for the benefit of the community. The work is performed under the general supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service of the Department of Justice.

The courts are another area which is provided for in the Justice group of Votes. The Minister has broad responsibility for providing the services necessary to enable the courts to function effectively. That responsibility extends to the promotion of legislation relating to the establishment, jurisdiction and functioning of the various courts and the making of Statutory Orders under existing legislation.

Most Deputies will be aware of the problems with the suitability and adequacy of courthouse accommodation. I must emphasise that responsibility for the provision and maintenance of court accommodation, with certain exceptions in the Dublin area, is vested by law in local authorities and it is vital that local authorities meet this responsibility if justice is to continue to be dispensed on a local basis.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will now bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Reynolds

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. The rest of the script can be read by the Deputies.

Mr. S. Barrett

This is a very important Estimate. I know it is not the fault of the Chair, but it is a total waste of time if we do not have an adequate opportunity to debate these issues.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is merely adhering to an order of the House. That is his duty as he sees it.

Mr. S. Barrett

I accept that. The normal thing to expect from any Opposition spokesperson on the Estimates debate each year is for him or her to concentrate on the need for extra resources in whatever area is covered by the relevant Estimate. In some cases this can be entirely justified and Justice is, in my opinion, one of these areas.

When Fianna Fáil were in Opposition, they called for more money to be spent on everything, telling the public as they did on the last occasion, that the Government of the day were operating Thatcherite policies at the expense of the ordinary person. They were at their very best during their last term in Opposition from 1982 to 1987 and, boy, did they play the traditional Opposition card? They did this at the expense of the people of this country, but they do not mind that. They operate on the basis that what is good for Fianna Fáil is good for the country.

Mr. Reynolds

It always was.

Mr. S. Barrett

Power at any cost. If they did what Fine Gael are now trying to do during this period of Opposition, this country would be well on the road to recovery. The role being played now by Fine Gael is a very difficult one, some might say it is political suicide, but I hope it will show the electorate that some politicians are prepared to put the interests of the country before their own personal electoral gain. I have faith in the public and I am confident that when the time comes, despite what the polls now say, we will get a favourable response.

The Estimate debate is probably the only time we have an opportunity to discuss the many areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. During the term of office of the previous Government, there was an Oireachtas Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism and the very valuable work carried out by that committee was tremendously important. Instead of abolishing this committee, the Government should have upgraded their status by giving them additional resources and extra powers to continue their work. I remind Fianna Fáil that this committee were set up, in the first instance, at their request; indeed they made that a condition before they agreed to other committees coming into operation. I ask the Minister to bring pressure to bear on the Government to re-establish this committee with the additional powers about which I spoke earlier.

Over the past 12 months I used every opportunity to try to put on the Statute Book a law dealing with the problem of under-age drinking. I went so far as to produce my own Private Members' Bill to deal with this very serious problem. I am very pleased that we recently passed the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, part of which incorporates the provisions of my Private Members' Bill on under-age drinking. This is the first stage in dealing with under-age drinking and I sincerely hope that with the co-operation of everybody concerned, particularly parents, it will not be too long before there is a massive improvement in this area.

Another serious problem facing us is the addiction by people, especially the young, to gaming machines. Recently we read of the unfortunate and untimely death of a young person who, because of his addiction, committed suicide. The law controlling the licensing of these machines is an ass. It is totally out of date and lacks proper controls to meet the requirements of the eighties and nineties. Because of the involvement of local authorities, there is no consistency in the way the law is administered. Some local authorities permit amusement halls in their areas and others have banned them. It is time the law was amended to relieve local authorities of their responsibility in this area and to replace it by setting up a gaming board which would be responsible for the issuing of certificates before a licence could be obtained. I propose that the gaming board should be given very strong powers to decide who and what premises should get a certificate and, before issuing a certificate, they should insist on very high standards being maintained.

I should like to give some examples of the powers which the gaming board should have: (a) powers to refuse the issue of a certificate and power to cancel a certificate in force if standards were not maintained or if the holders of a certificate did not conform with the requirements of the certificates; (b) the annual inspection of premises on a minimum basis and the right to inspect at any time; (c) the right to remove machines for examination at any time; (d) the power to set minimum requirements regarding pay-outs from machines which would not be below 90 per cent; (e) the power to ban particular types of machines and to decide what machines should be allowed on these premises; (f) the power to set age limits for those allowed on licensed premises, who should not be under 18 years and (g) the power to set the maximum stake permitted and the maximum value permitted to be won by a player in any game. These are only some of the stringent requirements which the gaming board should set because it is vital to stamp out the present abuses in some areas. We must control who can hold a licence and who is allowed on the premises. We should not wait for another death before doing something about this problem.

The idea of the gaming board could be developed from the recent intoxicating Liquor Bill under which Bord Fáilte are required to issue a certificate and unless such certificate is produced the court in question cannot issue a licence. If we amend our laws, set stringent limits and high standards, we could do something practical to deal with this problem. At present there is a lot of talk about machines — one group says we should ban them and another says they should be allowed — but in the meantime nothing is happening. My suggestions are constructive.

I should like to comment on some of the points made by the Minister and to refer to the increase in the number of crimes recorded in the first quarter of this year as against the same period last year. Members on this side of the House have consistently warned against this possibility. Not alone has there been an increase in the number of crimes committed but also in the type of crime involving the use of firearms. Most of us probably saw an article in The Irish Press on Monday 6 June where there was a heading “Armed Crime Rate in Dublin Worse than the US”. That is a terrible reflection on what is happening, especially in our capital city. It is commonplace now to open the daily newspapers and to read of another armed crime in some part of the country, but particularly in the greater Dublin area. It is time for us all to co-operate to do something constructive to eliminate this horrific increase in the crime level. Of course, putting more gardaí on the streets and amending our laws will not answer the problem which is due to high unemployment, to more and more people opting out of education and to our prison policy which appears to lock up people for a short period and then release them on to our streets, more hardened criminals than when they went into prison. I warn any Government against the dangers of cutbacks in the area of justice because if we do not have sufficient resources to deal with the type of problems which the Department of Justice are expected to deal with it will be reflected in other areas.

There is a general feeling that crime pays and there is a need to introduce a new system whereby offenders will have to recompense their victims. How often has a member of the public suffered as a result of a crime, for example, in his or her home? The normal procedure is to report the break-in to the local Garda station. A garda will probably pay you a visit but the chances are your property will never be recovered and there is an even greater chance that you will not hear anything further about the matter. There is a breakdown in public relations in dealing with the public and there is a feeling that the public are being alienated from the system. If somebody reports a burglary or another crime, he or she should be told of the eventual outcome of the complaint. Above all, it is time the victims of crime were recompensed by those who ultimately are caught and, instead of being put in prison for six months at the expense of the taxpayer, the person should repay the victim of the crime and do something constructive in the community. I am not saying we should close down our prisons — many people must be sent to prison — but there are numbers for whom it does absolutely nothing except to make them tougher criminals. In the meantime the unfortunate victims not only have to suffer a loss of property but have to fund the stay of the prisoners while in prison.

I should like to pay tribute to the work being done by the Irish Association for Victim Support who get the massive sum of £8,000 from the state each year for the very valuable work they do. This voluntary group do tremendous work in the community, in particular with people who have suffered as a result of serious crime. This group give a very good counselling service and I think they deserve recognition from the State. The miserable allocation of £8,000 is ridiculous, particularly when we read about the sums being thrown around from the national lottery. Depending on what constituency you are in, you can collect a cheque for £50,000 and deliver it personally.

An Ceann Comhairle

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy, merely to mention that he has some three minutes remaining.

Mr. S. Barrett

To be quite frank, I think this whole debate is a total joke. We have one chance in the year to discuss the operations of the Department of Justice and we have 15 minutes each.

Mr. Taylor

There does not seem to be any great pressure.

Mr. S. Barrett

Indeed, there is nobody in the House and the debate will probably finish early.

I have a few suggestions to make on the Garda Síochána. Again, it is not to call for more money to be spent but rather to examine the manner in which the money is spent. I honestly believe that the time has come — given the size of their allocation, £273 million — that the Garda Síochána should have more independence in deciding how this money is spent, in particular on the management structure of the Garda Síochána. I am not merely suggesting that we promote more people to the rank of assistant superintendent or to assistant commissioner but I think we should bring in expertise in financial control. There should be a financial controller at the level of deputy commissioner. In addition there should also be a personnel manager at the same level. These people should be able to set up proper controls for the expenditure of money and also pursue a proper staff policy. Any organisation that has a workforce of 11,000 people in this day and age would have the services of a trained and skilled personnel manager. I think that on a once-off basis a financial controller and personnel manager should be recruited and that those two individuals could set up systems whereby in the future members of the Force could be appointed to these divisions if they have the necessary skills. The only way to set about that is to recruit into the Force two or more individuals who would set about putting these procedures in train.

I would like also to compliment the Garda Síochána on the excellent work being done under very difficult circumstances. I had the pleasure recently of meeting one of the new community policemen operating in my constituency. This is a brilliant idea and is a return to the original concept of a community police force. These gardaí are operating on the ground very effectively and they are becoming part of the community. They are meeting on a daily basis youngsters who might possibly get into trouble in the future. They engender a sense of community involvement and of doing the thing together. I sincerely hope that the Force, with the exception of the specialist branches, will revert to their original intention, that is a community police force.

I hope we get back to the man on the beat, who would meet Mrs. Murphy every day and have a chat with her and who would be meeting all the youngsters and building up a worthwhile relationship with them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might now bring his speech to a close.

Mr. S. Barrett

Perhaps if we have time later on I might be allowed another few minutes because I have many other points that I wish to raise on the prisons, and the courts. Unfortunately, the Ceann Comhairle has brought my remarks to a conclusion, but again I appeal to the House that if we are to have a debate on an issue like this, let us have a proper debate; otherwise it is a total joke.

Miss Colley

I join with my colleague, Deputy Barrett, in being disparaging about the time this House has been given, not just for this debate but for every Estimates debate I have taken part in. The same problem occurred during the debate on the Labour Estimate and in fact, although the Minister galloped through his speech of 22 pages he did not reach the end, despite his best efforts. I believe the work of the Department of Justice starts from the point where crime exists in our community and certain measures must be taken to eliminate it. The Department have responsibility for all aspects of the elimination of crime and for the provision of justice in the procedures used. There is a lot of money involved in running the Department. The Minister's office alone is allocated £17.8 million; the Garda Síochána, £273 million; and the prisons, £57.5 million. These are enormous sums of money. I think it behoves this House, as Deputy Barrett has said, to give a reasonable amount of time to discuss Estimates where such a huge amount of taxpayers money is going.

I can only touch on certain areas that are worth mentioning for a minute or two and that is disparaging towards the public at large who have paid taxes which are paying for these services. We have no right of real scrutiny over the spending of this money, and after all this is a debate in which we can discuss this expenditure.

First, I will deal with the Estimate for the Office of the Minister. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the allocation to the Legal Aid Board and to the difficulties that they have been experiencing since their initiation. The legal aid scheme was set up in December 1979 and there are now 12 centres. However, there are still 18 counties without law centres. Even though Dublin which has the highest population density has four centres, there are still weeks and months when centres have to close because they are inundated with work and cannot cope. What does this say about the justice we are offering our people? What does it mean for the battered or deserted wife or the person in dire straits? Sometimes because of the urgency of their case people may skip the queue but those whose cases are not so urgent have to live with a very great problem on their minds which they cannot resolve and cannot get advice on and in some instances they cannot take action which would alleviate the problem. Sometimes people are waiting two or three months or more for advice on how to eliminate problems. I do not think that is good enough. In fact the Legal Aid Board has been promised four more centres in early 1987 and as of yet we have had no move on this. In addition we are awaiting legislation to put the Legal Aid Board on a statutory basis and until that happens I think there is a great deal of doubt about this Government's commitment to such a board in the long term.

Until they have statutory form we will not know the terms of the Government's commitment to the board. New legislation on marital law reform and on adoption, to mention a couple of areas, are going through this House at present. As a direct result of the implementation of this legislation more cases will come before the Legal Aid Board and they will simply not be able to cope as they are presently constituted. I appeal to the Minister to look seriously at the workings of the Legal Aid Board and their centres. I do not in any way wish to denigrate the work done by the personnel there; there is an enormous commitment on their part. However, I would ask the Minister to review the way in which it operates to ascertain whether there is any way in which the extra centres promised last year can be provided.

I should like to deal now with another group working on behalf of those who suffer because of crime. I refer to the Irish Association for Victim Support. The £8,000 the Minister has seen fit to allocate to this association is an absolute pittance. I would claim that the amount of money saved by the State by the work of this association would be far in excess of that amount. They are a voluntary associations and wish to remain so. They are not asking to be paid counsellors. I believe there is a strong case to be made for the proper funding of the training of such counsellors, and their work. People are experiencing more and more trauma on account of being victims of crime. It is said that one in every seven persons in Dublin has been mugged. That is an horrific figure and it is one only of many that could be cited to illustrate the contact with crime of the ordinary man or woman in the street. The work of that association is valuable, essential and should be supported and there are ways of doing so without requiring the overall budget be increased.

For instance I know that, in Britain, the proceeds of unclaimed stolen property remaining in police stations are devoted partly to such an association there. I see no reason why that should not take place here. It is my understanding that at present such proceeds go back into central funds. It is my belief that it would be quite simple to divert those proceeds to such an association. I ask the Minister to consider doing so by way of a preventive measure rather than allowing people to end up in hospitals, psychiatric hospitals and in doctors' care at an undoubted cost to the State. At the annual conference of the Irish Association for Victim Support the Director of Public Prosecutions delivered a very interesting paper on the victim's place in the criminal justice system. Its contents are well worth thinking about.

He demonstrated very carefully that the history of the victim and his or her place in the system led us into the position in which the State has taken over all responsibility for eliminating crime practically without reference to the victim. Originally it was the victim who prosecuted. Then the State took over that prosecution on behalf of the victim. It now appears that the State takes over the prosecution on behalf of the public at large. In so doing the victim is lost completely to the system and they know they are irrelevant, except to turn up on the day and give evidence. That is not good enough because it merely contributes to the trauma occasioned by the crime itself.

I ask the Minister to initiate proper procedures with regard to consultation with the victim, provision of information on the way a case is proceeding, information on why a case is not being brought forward or the reasons for certain types of consequences or causes being prosecuted and others not. I ask him to examine also the possibility of compensation to be paid by the offender to the victim. I do not believe that would be suitable in all cases. It is my belief that some offenders would simply opt out of any earning capacity they might have, or disappear, and that would be the end of it. The initiation of community services orders is very useful. Again I would contend that, where possible, compensation would be given because it would provide a direct line between the criminal and victim.

I believe that the re-organisation of the Garda Síochána initiated is very welcome. There is no doubt that in recent years there has been a crying need for a proper management-oriented re-organisation of the force. That is beginning to take place. I would point the Minister in the direction of the fact that there is public unease because there is no evidence of the replacement of certain units within the Force which have been disbanded. In view of the increase in crime figures the unease of the public about the disbandment of special units within the Force has been aggravated. I know there has been a decrease in crime figures over the past year or two but I contend that that decrease must be viewed in the context of the enormous rise in the previous seven or eight years. It is not good enough to say that crime has been beaten because statistics have decreased over the past year or two. The facts are that crime increased four- or five-fold in the previous seven to ten years. We still have a long way to go before we can maintain that we have got on top of the appalling rate of crime.

With regard to the prison service I should like to put on record that I believe the strike that occurred in the last year was totally unnecessary and was damaging to the prison system itself. It spoke of a confrontational approach taken by both sides, quite unsuited to industrial relations, and spoke volumes about the lack of industrial relations and personnel management in the prison service and, I would go so far as to say, within the Department of Justice. Both sides should take note of what happened in the course of that dispute and why it led to industrial action which could not be overcome for so long when there was so little dividing the parties to the dispute. In the end it is my belief that there was no real shift in the positions of either party.

In the context of the Wheatfield Prison and others which may be planned for the future, proper planning is absolutely vital. I know from my experience of serving on the Committee of Public Accounts that the kind of stop-go planning that has taken place on the building of prisons in recent years has resulted in millions of pounds being spent unnecessarily. For instance, there was the debacle about the prison officers' accommodation in Portlaoise Prison which arose directly out of a failure to go ahead withi the building of a new high security prison there. As a result, there was the scandal of 200 extremely expensive special prison doors made and bought. They are now in cold storage and will be for the foreseeable future, because the planning of the new prison was a stop-go exercise, with nobody knowing who was in control and nobody taking responsibility for decisions at appropriate times.

I should like to refer now to extradition, an issue which has arisen again in the course of the past week in relation to the McVeigh case. It is important that the Government should realise that the fuss occasioned and the difficulties created between this country, Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as a direct result of that case, arose out of their very heavy politicisation of the whole extradition issue last December.

This Government insisted on bringing extradition into the political arena. They insisted on bringing a political appointee, the Attorney General, into the decision-making process. Not alone is the Attorney General prosecuting the case or presenting the warrant, but he is also in a quasi-judicial way making a decision before he does that, as to whether or not there is evidence to back that up. Because of all the politicisation of extradition, we had the debacle this week that what prior to this might have appeared to be a simple criminal justice or judicial decision is now seen as a political decision and no matter what Irish politicians or the Irish people say it will be seen in Britain and in Northern Ireland that we are against extradition.

It has to be said from the floor of this House that this Government created the situation by politicising extradition. We must urgently change the 1965 Extradition Act so that the decisions on fine points of law which district justices are expected to grapple with at the moment can be removed to a higher court. It is not realistic to expect them to grapple with these points. The onus should be removed from the district justice. There is nothing wrong with a district justice making a simple yes or no decision in a case but if there are fine points of law to be discussed and decided upon it should not be left in that forum.

Mr. Taylor

I will commence on the point on which the previous speaker concluded, the extradition question. I totally disagree with her comment that district justices are not capable of dealing with fine points of law. That is not correct. District justices are very capable of dealing with fine points of law and they do it very well, but the district justices can only deal with the law as they find it and that is where the responsibility of the House comes in. We have not met that need. The law in this area has proven totally unsatisfactory relating to the McVeigh case which gave rise to the difficulty during the week. The Minister's and the Government's response is totally inadequate and will not meet the needs at all. The Minister says he will appeal this by way of a case stated to the High Court. That may be all right as far as it goes but that is not what is needed. We are dealing here with a question of the law of evidence under the Extradition Act and we need short, sharp, quick amending legislation to deal with the question of evidence. That should not be too difficult for the Minister to introduce and if need be it could be put through both Houses of the Oireachtas even in one day. I am sure the co-operation of all parties would be forthcoming on that.

Identification as required under the code has proven totally unsatisfactory. A standard of identification ought to be set down in a new short simple Bill. I am surprised that no announcement has come from the Minister to say that will be done and that it will be brought forward urgently, because there will be further McVeigh-type cases with difficulties arising. The Government do not seem to be motivated towards putting their house in order on this issue. A Bill amending the law of evidence of identification could set down varying standards and it would be for the House to consider what those standards might be. There could be a very low standard of proof, for example that a senior officer of the Garda might be held as sufficient evidence of identification if he says that in his opinion and from his knowledge the person named on the warrant is the person now before the court. That might not be a high standard but it is a possibility which equates more or less to the basis we had where a senior officer gives as his opinion that a person is a member of an illegal organisation. Alternatively, there could be higher standards. These are matters for the House to decide. At least there ought to be some clearer basis of identification set down.

At the moment the District Courts apply the law as they find it and we cannot find fault with them when they apply the law as it is before them. Will the Minister look into the question of amending the law of evidence to put extradition on a proper footing? If the Minister does not do that, notwithstanding what we may say we will be open to criticism both here and abroad, particularly in the UK, that we are not serious about bringing in an effective and workable system of extradition. The present system is not working and we warned it would not work. No extradition has taken place under the new Act, and what could be greater proof than that. I do not know how many people are sought under that code, but something will have to be done about it. To say that the long procedure of a High Court case stated application will meet the need is wrong. We are open to serious criticism on the extradition question. If an announcement was forthcoming to say that the law of evidence was going to be clarified and amended in an appropriate way to deal with the matter of identification, which is the major problem, that would go a long way towards meeting the situation.

The criminal injuries code is totally unsatisfactory. The previous Government, and it reflects no credit on them, made major cutbacks and utterly decimated the system under which awards of compensation would be given to people who sustained serious personal injuries from stabbings, assaults or whatever, as a result of serious crimes. That was reduced by the previous Government and now the only compensation that can be recovered by a person attacked and sustaining serious injuries is that he can get his loss of earnings or hospital expenses. That is all. At the time the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition said what was proposed was outrageous and unthinkable and that it should not be done but they have not done anything about it since they came to Government. I see no move to reinstate it. Even worse, those small sums to cover expenses and loss of wages may not be recovered quickly because there is not sufficient money in the scheme. We are told that even where decrees for those small amounts are made it will take a year or more before those moneys can be recovered from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That is regrettable. I ask the Government to re-examine the question of reintroducing the scheme which was so badly cut back and which cutback was criticised so strongly at the time.

Deputy Colley made reference to civil legal aid. The system is a disgrace. It is an absolute outrage that year after year we allow a situation to continue where access to the law remains by and large the preserve of the rich. With money behind them they can maintain their rights, their property and their actions and claims with a full access to the law that is denied to ordinary people who cannot afford the very high level fees required in many categories of action. That is totally unjust and it is an ongoing shame and disgrace that successive Governments have allowed it to continue to this day. Not just this Government but previous Governments should feel ashamed. This is an even bigger disgrace when we realise that even the poor legal aid system that is there was brought in not because we decided it was necessary or because we wanted to bring it in, but because we were directed to do it by international organisations, the EC, the Council of Europe or whatever. If that had not happened, I wonder whether we would have no legal aid system. It is a denial of the basic ordinary rights of the citizen. He or she should have the same access and be in a position to avail of those rights which the law gives him or her in like manner to a person who has wealth. Otherwise we are not complying with the directive in the Constitution to treat all children of the nation equally.

We are introducing new legislation giving new rights of judicial separation as pointed out by Deputy Colley. There will be no benefit in giving those rights unless we give with them the means to avail of the right. What advantage is it to anybody to have a right if they do not have the financial means to avail of that right? I regret that that is the position at present. We are bringing in here, with the consent of all parties, new rights to facilitate the grant of judicial separations. Any person who has money, even under the existing law, can get a judicial separation if they need one. Anyone who can put £1,000 or £1,500 on the table up front for those solicitors who specialise in that line of country will have little or no difficulty in getting a judicial separation. We are bringing in new remedies but if we are serious, we must also provide the financial means to people who cannot afford to avail of those rights.

Our record in the area of law reform is poor in the extreme in this country. We have an appreciable number of fine reports brought in by the Law Reform Commission and other organisations recommending much needed reform in our laws. We seem to regard that as having a very low priority in our order of things in this House over the years. It is totally unsatisfactory that it should be left to Opposition parties in this House to bring in law reform measures. They do that within the limited time available in Private Members' Time. Some parties in the House do not have any Private Members' Time and consequently are unable to deal with the problem in that way. The primary responsibility for law reform must rest with the Government and they are doing very little in that regard. It is an appalling waste of resources that the Law Reform Commission have been there all these years, at considerable expense, recommending much needed changes in the law and their reports gather dust on the shelves. Little or nothing is done to implement those reports. There must be couple of dozen reports covering a wide spectrum of both civil and criminal law, occupiers liability, rape, and so on, and a very small percentage of their recommendations ever reach the Statute Book.

What is the point in having the Law Reform Commission there and paying out the millions of pounds which are spent on them if, when their reports come out, they are not dealt with. The measures they recommended are non-controversial and there would be no problem at all in bringing them to the two Houses of the Oireachtas. They could be introduced, passed and adopted very quickly and provide a much improved legal system for the citizens with no political difficulties whatsoever. I wish the Government would have a look at that and set aside some time, perhaps on Fridays, to deal with non-controversial law reform measures. That would be a very valuable step for the House to take.

The Garda Síochána and the crime situation have been referred to. There is an air of complacency abroad that all is well on this issue, but all is not well. I comment and protest in the strongest possible terms that in the Dublin area the report shows that, in the first four months of this year there was a 9.1 per cent increase in crimes in the Dublin area. That is an outrageous figure. There is no mystery, what is the cause of it? The cause is the cutbacks in the resources made available to the Garda Síochána to deal with crime. I am concerned about the greater Dublin area where there was a 9.1 per cent increase — almost a one-tenth increase in the first four months of this year — and we do not have to look very far to find the reason for it. There was a 1 per cent increase in Garda resources in the current year, in other words, a substantial reduction in real terms in the resources available to the Garda Síochána. Nobody need be surprised that there is a 9.1 per cent increase in the crime rate in the Dublin area, a crime rate which even before that was totally unacceptable and was far too high. We are looking for a reduction of 9 per cent, not an increase of 9 per cent. The Government must see to it that they make the resources available from whatever means may be appropriate. There are plenty of means available, through capital taxation and otherwise, to ensure that the necessary Garda resources are provided.

I have spoken to a number of senior gardaí in the outer Dublin suburbs who have informed me that they do not have the manpower and womanpower they require to cope with the problem of crime particularly in the densely populated areas in the new towns of County Dublin. They are complaining about that and they do not have the resources to tackle it. A lot of Garda resources are wasted. I have seen courtrooms with 20 or 30 gardaí waiting from 10.30 a.m. until 4 p.m. in the afternoon for cases to come up. Do not tell me that some better system of dividing up the time and organising listing systems cannot be devised to ensure that there are no more than three, four, five or six gardaí waiting in a court at any one time. The remaining 20 or 30 gardaí can go about their business and give their expertise and energies to dealing with crime which is what they are required for.

The question of fines was touched on in the Minister's speech. The Minister, on the one hand, is complaining that there are a substantial number of uncollected fines, many of them going back a number of years, amounting to many millions of pounds. On the other hand, he has pointed out that there are staff shortages and a restraint on the numbers of people being employed in issuing these fines. All I can say is that the Minister cannot have it both ways. A distinction ought to be drawn between those areas of Government which are self-financing and those areas which are not. There is no excuse or reason why areas which are self-financing — including fine collection, Revenue and the Land Registry — should not be given the staff they require to carry out their functions in a proper manner. It would cost the Government and the taxpayers at large nothing. For the life of me, I cannot understand why one has to make a blind rule that covers everything as though an equal situation arose when it does not. Those areas that are self-financing should be dealt with in a special way.

Mr. McCartan

I am obliged to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me to make some observations on the proposal of the Minister in respect of the Estimates for the Department of Justice. The time allocated for debate on Estimates is taken by all Deputies in the House as an opportunity to raise issues of varying degrees of importance and of concern to them in the area of responsibility of the Minister. It is an important time in the House and one that is attended to very carefully by all Deputies who contribute. For that reason it is regrettable that we have taken the debate at this time today. I respect the fact that the Minister for Justice has pressing and urgent business elsewhere and could not be available to the House today at any time. Nonetheless, I open my remarks by saying to the Whips, or the people responsible for the ordering of business, that we should have found another time, or another day, for this debate when we could have had the Minister present. That is no reflection on the Minister who made the opening speech or on the Minister of State who is listening to our remarks here today. Because of the importance of this debate and its significance in the overall ordering of Dáil Business, I ask the spokespersons of the various parties to ensure that on the next occasion the Minister will be present.

Of the matters I wish to raise and touch on briefly, two are issues I have attempted unsuccessfully in the past couple of weeks to raise on the Order of Business, the Adjournment, Question Time or otherwise. The first is singularly urgent and pressing and, I regret, is not touched upon in the whole of the Minister's speech, either delivered or in the written text available to us. I refer to the alarming incidence of deaths in prison. The last such very unfortunate death occurred on Monday, 13 June last when a young man of 29 years took his life in Mountjoy Prison, from all available information hanging by a piece of sheet in his cell.

Various questions must be asked about that incident. First, he was not a stranger to prison. He had been in and out many times and going back to prison was no problem to him as far as his family were concerned. He was an outgoing, happy person who had a short term to serve and a future ahead of him. He had a young girlfriend who visited him on the day of his return; he had been out on compassionate release. He went back to prison on Wednesday, 8 June, he was visited on Thursday, 9 June by his girl-friend and on Saturday, 11 June he had a discussion with his younger brother who was serving time in prison with him. At that stage his brother observed, as was obvious to anyone, that he had a broken arm. He had gone back to prison fully fit with no problems. Some time between Wednesday, 8 June and Saturday, 11 June he was involved in an incident that led to his arm being broken and put in plaster of paris. He complained to his brother at the time of having been bullied and the bullying involved prison officers. He complained he was banging on his cell door looking for medical attention and not getting it. Early on Monday morning he was found dead. I understand he was removed from his prison cell to the city morgue at 3 a.m. on Monday, 13 June. I wonder why that was done at such an early hour. I believe he was removed before the Garda Síochána were admitted or the State Pathologist had an opportunity to see the location of his death. Subsequent requests by members of his family to see the cell were refused.

All this raises very serious and important questions. The demand I made on Monday, 13 June was that there would be a full inquiry not just of this incident — which deserves it — but because in three years we have had 13 separate incidents of death by suicide in our prisons.

The Minister refers to serious overcrowding and the increase in percentage numbers in prison — clearly an important factor — and problems in the prisons of administration on the one hand and coping with conditions by prisoners on the other. The absence of the appointment of a full time medical director with overall responsibility for prison medical services has yet to be dealt with even though it was one of the short term immediate objectives and recommendations of the Whitaker report in 1985. Simply letting this death and many others rest on individual coroners' reports and inquiries is not sufficient. A report is carried in today's papers of a coroner's inquest in Cork yesterday where the coroner suggested as a rider to the jury that the recommendation be attached of the appointment of an overall medical director. He saw from the evidence before him questions to be answered and issues to be tackled in regard to our prison services. I say to the Minister that a judicial tribunal of inquiry must be appointed to look into the whole series of unfortunate deaths that have occurred, that patterns and reasons of connection must be identified and he must make recommendations that must be implemented, if anything is to be done in the area.

The second issues relates to what occurred at Portlaoise Prison on 18 May last. I touched on it briefly in the extradition statements we made earlier this week and I do not want to go back over the points I made then. Subsequent to that debate the Minister for Defence in this House said that from his inquiry he was satisfied that the member of the armed forces on security duty on the prison who shot towards McVeigh to his mind had acted correctly but he refused to tell us why or on what grounds. The Prison Officers' Association are not satisfied about it and a prison officer is currently on suspension from duty pending a disciplinary inquiry. He was ordered to pursue McVeigh but declined to do so because he was under fire and was not going to put himself at the risk of running into the cross-fire. I demand that the Minister reinstate that man without delay.

I ask him whether it is proper that an inquiry should not be established or some form of liaison take place between the three wings of security oftentimes in Portlaoise, the Army, the prison officers and the Garda. Some form of co-ordination should take place which did not occur on that morning. The prison officers were unaware when they were conducting the prisoner out what was likely to happen outside. They were totally unaware that a directive was available to the armed personnel that should there be difficulty they were entitled to and should open fire. It was an unhappy event and what transpired in court later was more unhappy. For the sake of that one person who, for very good reasons, was reluctant to carry out the duties ordered of him I ask the Minister to put this matter right and end the confusion that surrounds it.

I ask the Minister to indicate the view he has with regard to the previous Government's proposals about the establishment of a Garda authority. This has not been addressed by the present Government or Minister in the course of debates on the Garda Síochána or mentioned in the address to the House this morning. Nonetheless, it is pressing and will always rear its head when accusations arise of interference in the work and development of the services of the Garda Síochána. On the other hand, the complaints board who have been established have serious problems of overwork. They have been rushed with applications, I believe double what the CEO expected in their first year, and from my most recent information have not commenced any full hearings, nor have the appeals board been established to hear appeals from the decisions of the board. That must be addressed.

It has been indicated that the training recommendations of the Walsh Committee will be fully implemented and that the Minister intends in 1989 to receive over a three year period 1,000 new recruits. Recruitment to the Garda Síochána must be ongoing on an annual basis to avail of the ready talent that comes from our schools yearly. Templemore is not the most suitable place to invest £15 million and I agree with the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors on that. It should be centrally based with proper facilities in Dublin, and Carysfort has been highlighted and pointed out as a suitable and available premises. In any event, the Minister promises to spend £15 million on it. That work has yet to begin and will not be completed in time to avail of the 1,000 new recruits coming in in the next three years. That is to be regretted.

In regard to the prison services, I reject the proposals of the Prison Officers' Association that the Minister should recruit more staff and in that way overcome the difficulties of overtime and rostering that have been raised between the association and the Minister. It is not and never should be a demand for increased staffing in our prisons we should be looking for but a decrease in the number of inmates. Many services are available to the Minister that are far more cost effective and constructive, such as community area work, community services work and the Probation Service. They should be expanded. More resources should be put into them and more emphasis placed on non-custodial means of dealing with petty crime rather than sending them back to prison. Clearly, the Minister must open Wheatfield without delay. Another institution that has not been mentioned today and on which millions has been spent developing is at Dundrum. That has been idle for upwards of five years. When will that unit be opened for whatever purpose? That is another valve of modern new facilities available to help relieve overcrowding and any other peculiar difficulties that will need to be addressed when Wheatfield is opened.

In the few moments remaining I should like to refer the Minister to a problem that was brought to my attention in regard to the criminal injuries compensation tribunal. This morning a solicitor in the city drew my attention to a problem that has arisen in a case in which he is involved. An incident occurred on 25 September 1985 and following it an application was made to the tribunal within the requisite period, three months. A communication was sent to the tribunal in July 1987 and the solicitor was advised by letter in October 1987 that a decision on whether compensation would be available would be made in June or July of this year. However, this morning a letter was received by the solicitor indicating that a decision would have to be deferred for a further 12 months. On current standards, payment will follow 12 months later. Consequently, what little support there is for victims — it is little enough — will not be paid for upwards of five years, based on current expenditure to compensate those entitled to it. That is a scandal that must be redressed immediately. Money must be made available to enable that tribunal discharge all outstanding claims without delay.

My final point deals with the gaming machines issue. I understand that there will be a hearing before the High Court on Tuesday in which the gaming hall owners will be using the arguments used in the Fortuna lottery game in support of their challenge. Machines have now been adopted so that when the gambling is finished and the gambler wants to collect the proceeds from the machine he or she will have to answer questions of skill. The question may be, how many legs does a horse have? The question is presented in this way, "is it correct to say that a horse has four legs, true or false"? On the basis of what have been described as questions of skill those people are hopeful of reintroducing gaming machines in the areas where they are banned.

It is not for us to comment on the outcome of proceedings pending but I should like to ask the Minister to keep a close eye on the outcome of that case. Should the need arise, I invite him to introduce an amendment to the legislation to ensure that the device is not successfully employed to allow gaming back into the areas where it is not welcome. I should like to thank the Chair and I hope the Minister will respond positively.

Mr. O'Donoghue

At the outset I should like to respond to the outrageous allegation made this morning that the role of the Attorney General was in some way politicised in connection with extradition. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Attorney General has always exercised a quasi-judicial function. Indeed, up to the time of the creation of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General decided whether or not a person should be prosecuted in connection with an offence. The Attorney General now decides whether there is sufficient evidence for a person to stand trial and that is the first time we have introduced a safeguard in connection with extradition. In many countries there is a process under which a prima facie case must be established before a citizen will be extradited to the jurisdiction of another country. Our Extradition Act, 1965, was deficient in that it did not provide a safeguard in relation to the extradition of an Irish citizen. In the last year or so there has been a considerable amount of confusion throughout the country about this issue. I have heard an allegation that the Office of the Attorney General had in some way been politicised. That, to say the least, was a mischievous and unhelpful allegation in the present climate. It was a disgraceful comment.

The Garda Síochána have made a tremendous contribution to Irish life. It is not often appreciated that it is an outstanding force and one we can be proud of.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to ask Deputy Bruton to pay attention to the Member in possession.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Garda Síochána have had their difficulties such as last year in Tipperary but all police forces have their difficulties. We are all aware that other police forces have had to deal with corruption in their ranks but that has never occurred in the Garda Síochána. It is fair to say that they have given a tremendous service and behaved impeccably since they were established.

The greatest drawback that exists in relation to court costs is the fact that we have an outdated list system. It can take up to five years from the date a High Court action is instituted for it to be tried. Very often that means that a number of adjournments are involved. Such adjournments, particularly in rural areas, can run for several weeks and that means that several professional witnesses, doctors, dentists, architects or engineers, will be obliged to attend on each day the case is listed and must be paid for their attendance. I am no apologist for the Bar Council but it must be said that while such professional witnesses are paid for each day they turn up for a case, whether that case proceeds or not, the barristers and solicitors are not paid.

Until such time as the list system is organised in such a way that the legal profession, and those involved in cases, can be made aware of the day their case will be heard, we will be left with high court costs. The abolition of juries, or the two senior counsel rule, will not of themselves reduce insurance premiums. It is well known that in a given High Court action the fees and expenses of professional witnesses more often than not exceed the fees of the barristers and solicitors put together. It is clear that some form of listing which will indicate to people the day when their case will be heard is needed as a matter of urgency.

I should like to refer to recent events in Dublin relating to a wellknown alleged criminal. To say the least of it it was not funny to see pictures in newspapers of that individual in what was described as Mickey Mouse attire. This business is far too serious for the media to trivialise crime in this manner. That is precisely what the media did in this matter. The Garda have a duty and that duty should not be undermined by the media in this manner. The fact that you trivialise or make a situation such as this look funny begins to make many people think that the position is not as serious as it really is. The facts are quite different and I believe that the media behaved irresponsibly, to say the least, in this matter.

I was interested to hear Deputy McCartan say that the Garda training headquarters should not be in Templemore but in Dublin. I am not from Templemore but I object to the promotion of centralisation which Deputy McCartan seemed to suggest. If we start to move training centres such as this to Dublin, the next proposal will be that we move the whole country to Dublin. One-third of the population is already in Dublin. Most of those people are from the country which, of course, is why there have been very good football teams in Dublin in the past ten years. Many of those were of Kerry descent.

Mr. S. Barrett

The Dubs went to Kerry.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There is a necessity for more staff in the Land Registry. The Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds deal with very important matters. Young people very often find that their mortgages are held up for interminable periods because of the delay in getting registrations completed in the Land Registry. This applies in particular where a person is trying to get a title by long possession. The responses from the Land Registry seem to take a considerable period of time. If the registration is a first registration it can take from three to five years to get one's title. It appears that the problem here is that there is not sufficient staff to deal with these matters. I would go as far as to say that there have never been sufficient staff in the Land Registry to deal with the problems there. This is no criticism of the people working in the Land Registry because, for the most part, they are excellent people and are very much on top of what can be an extremely difficult job.

The new Intoxicating Liquor Bill recently introduced will be of tremendous benefit to tourism areas. Far from being a liberalisation or a softening up of the previous rules in relation to after hours drinking, the increase in fines is a major deterrent, to say the least. It is a major deterrent for the publican and, without a doubt, for the customer. The extension of the hours was required and will assist the tourist industry in a major way in tourism resorts throughout the country.

Finally, I would like to mention the question of courthouses. In many parts of the country there are courthouses where the public do not have an opportunity to sit down. I know of at least one court in County Kerry where the public are obliged to stand from 11 a.m. until the court closes, very often at 5 p.m. There is room for the judge and the solicitors to sit down, but not for the person who is clearly the most agitated on the day. This is merely symbolic of the state of these courthouses. Some of these buildings are wrecks. They are not just falling down, but they should be brought down. The sooner we introduce a priority list for the repair of courthouses throughout the country the better.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

First, it is a pity that more time was not allocated for discussion on this very important Estimate. The Fine Gael spokesman on Justice, Deputy Barrett, has already made that point. I know it is not a matter for the Chair — his hands are tied in the matter — but a much longer period should have been allocated. I understand that a solicitors's Bill has been on the stocks for some time and that the purpose of that Bill is to update the present solicitors' Acts and confer further authority on the Incorporated Law Society to regulate the profession. I urge the Minister for Justice to bring that Bill before the House at the earliest possible moment. When the last Bill was introduced it took about 20 years from the time it was first mooted until it became an Act.

I wish to refer to the provision that the Irish language should be qualification for the solicitors' profession. I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not intend to belittle or run down the Irish language but I want to be practical about it. The Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Act, 1929, provides that before a person is admitted as a solicitor he shall establish, to the satisfaction of the Incorporated Law Society, through an examination, that he or she has sufficient knowledge of the language to take instructions and conduct a case through the medium thereof. That provision was enacted when there was much more enthusiasm for reviving the Irish language than there ever has been since. This provision demands a very high standard of knowledge of the language. It is perhaps doubtful that any worthwhile percentage of the solicitors practising at present could discharge the obligations imposed on them by the Act I have just mentioned, but the Act is still there.

I want to discuss this provision in relation to emigration, strange as that may be. Emigration now seems to be an accepted fact of life. I was listening to the radio recently and the newscaster, from the tone of his voice, seemed to treat as good news the fact that the emigration laws in the United States were being processed quickly and that they would be very favourable to the Irish emigrants. He seemed to be almost as pleased about that as he was about the win of the Irish team last Sunday.

There are enough solicitors, if not too many solicitors — there is a surplus of solicitors — in this country and there is a ready demand for them in the United Kingdom. When young solicitors emigrate to England they must practise as law clerks because they are not qualified as solicitors under English law. Somebody might ask why we do not have reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom so that our qualifications may be accepted there and their qualification will be accepted here. The stumbling block is the provision about the Irish language. We cannot accept the United Kingdom qualification unless their solicitors pass this requirement which was laid down in 1929. That is a pity and we should have a realistic approach to this. I am told that 1992 will change all that. Whoever will be alive to see it, 1992 will be a great year because it will apparently change everything if we take it at face value. A realistic approach should be taken to this provision with a view to ensuring that if young solicitors have to cross the water in search of employment, they do so as qualified solicitors, with qualifications that are acceptable in the United Kingdom. In my view, that can only be done if we have a reciprocal arrangement.

Something has been said about the Land Registry. The solicitors' profession comes in for a lot of blame for delays. I would be the last person in the world to say that there are not delays in solicitor's offices which could be avoided, but there are some delays over which solicitors have no control. Delays in the Land Registry is one of these areas. The Land Registry is grossly under-staffed. A lot of work in a solicitor's office is done through the Land Registry and depends on the speed and promptness with which they do their work. The Land Registry staff are doing their best to give a service but they simply do not have the staff. Strangely, they have the money to pay for staff because my information is that last year the Land Registry made a profit of £1.5 million. Still, they do not have sufficient staff to supply the documents and process the applications lodged with them. I urge that something be done about this. In my opinion, at a time of high unemployment, there is no sense not employing people in an institution that is making money and can pay staff to provide a better service.

Reference has been made to the extradition farce which recently took place here. I believe we have a good court system and that our system of justice and the administration of justice compare very favourably with any throughout the world, but episodes like that which happened last week damage, not alone the image of our legal and court system but the image of Ireland abroad. The question is whether the district justice was right or wrong in requiring further evidence of identification of the person wanted, in other words, whether he was right or wrong in requiring further evidence that the person wanted was the person named in the warrant. I will not go into the rights or wrongs of that.

In the case mentioned by Deputy Taylor, the Cawley case, at least there was a question of doubt and maybe the district justice was bound by the High Court case where a judgment had been given on the same topic only weeks earlier. I still think there is ground for complaints on two issues. If the British authorities were advised by our legal people that no further evidence was required as to identification, and that advice was wrong or if there was any doubt about it, the person who gave that advice should have erred on the side of caution, because it is better to have too much evidence in court rather than not enough.

Mr. Taylor

Particularly when it was available.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

Exactly. Even without that evidence the case could have been and should have been saved. From what I have read about the case, it appears no application was made for an adjournment. If it appeared that this evidence was missing or that further evidence was required, the normal thing to do was to apply for an adjournment of the case for a week or even two days. In the case, I do not think injustice would have been done.

From my experience — unless things have drastically changed in the last few years — that would have been a very normal application to make. If a witness was not there or the evidence was not available, the normal procedure would be to ask for an adjournment. Why was an adjournment not asked for? I will go further: if the district justice knew he was going to dismiss the case on a technicality, it would not have been unusual for him to suggest that the case should be adjourned. That was not done either, and the result was to damage the image of our administration of justice and the country in general.

I agree with Deputy McCartan when he expressed alarm at what I call the number of prison suicides. That should not happen. There have been far too many suicides over the last few years. It is very sad to see people, who are incarcerated in the custody of the State for, among other things, the protection society and who are not even protected against themselves when they are in a state of uncertain mind or when their mind is deranged. There should be ways and means of removing from cells anything which could be used by a prisoner to inflict damage on himself. I join Deputy McCartan and other Deputies in highlighting this point.

Mr. Flanagan

I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate and I regret the general lack of interest shown by Deputies. The Minister's speech encompassed a review of his Department's work and plans for the future, but I would point out that there has been very little progress towards fulfilling the promises made in last year's Estimate speech. I will not be able to make all the points I would wish in the time available, so I will confine myself to some general comments on the administration of justice.

The allocation for the prison service is considerable. I would maintain that there are many people within society who should be behind bars but on the other hand I would question the wisdom of district justices imposing custodial sentences for crimes which are not considered serious. This point was recognised some years ago when provision was made for community service orders. District justices have not, however, paid sufficient attention to this weapon. In the main, the option of imposing community service orders has been ignored, despite the fact that such orders would be a far better penalty than custodial sentences particularly for young offenders, and could go a long way towards preventing crime in our society.

A considerable amount of money has been allocated by the Department of Justice for educational facilities within prisons. I am aware of the need for cutbacks and financial rectitude and I would question some of the other perks available within prisons. The recreational facilities in Portlaoise prison are a case in point. Long-term prisoners at Portlaoise have luxury facilities, while people in the town who are living in areas of high unemployment find it difficult even to survive.

Deputy McCartan referred to the incident on the public thoroughfare outside Portlaoise prison when Patrick McVeigh was released and subsequently arrested. There is serious disquiet about this incident and a number of questions have been left unanswered by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice. I would call for a public inquiry into the manner in which the matter was handled. A member of the security forces discharged ammunition from a weapon at 8.30 a.m. on the edge of a large, busy provincial town on the main Dublin-Cork road, the busiest road in the country. There are questions to be asked about the order that was given, the manner in which the shots were fired and where the discharges ended up. Why was no effort made by the authorities to divert traffic? How was it possible for people to gather at the gates of the prison from 6.15 a.m. until 8.30 a.m. without being impeded by the authorities? Why was there no direct channel of communication between the prison officers and gardaí on duty and the members of the Defence Forces? Was the senior member of staff who is now suspended told that the gentleman to be released was to be immediately rearrested? It is unfair that a particular prison officer has been made a scapegoat, especially when a foul-up is alleged. I would ask the Minister to confirm that Mr. McVeigh was actually released and that his arrest was made on the public thoroughfare and not within the grounds of the prison.

This matter can only be cleared up by a public inquiry. Many people within my constituency are urgently requesting such an inquiry. A number of suspected terrorists have in the past been arrested upon their release from prison. The recent incident is only one of many and no doubt similar incidences will occur in the future.

I welcome the increase of 1 per cent in the allocation for the Garda Síochána, although the amount is paltry. I hope we will see a halt to the closure of rural Garda stations. Over the past 18 months many such stations have closed entirely, while stations in larger towns provide a morning service only, between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and for an hour on Sundays. This is not a move in the right direction. We have been told that when a Garda station is not manned there is a radio telephone communication facility known as the "green man". I hope this is the case and I would urge the Minister and the Department to ensure that members of the public are aware of the availability of this facility. I am sure that in many areas the popular perception in the locality is that once the Garda station is closed this mechanical green man will be sought. While obviously the "green man" is inferior to the blue capped man, nevertheless it is something that might be publicised a little more.

There is a need for radical change in the court system. Perhaps the Minister over the coming months would address himself to the need to review the jurisdiction of courts and perhaps consider increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court again from the sum of £2,500. Perhaps he would also consider an increase in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to alleviate the delays that still exist as far as High Court actions are concerned, albeit significantly less than in the past.

The family law area is still the poor relation. The Minister and his predecessors have stated on a number of occasions that a reform of the family law courts to include family law tribunals would involve considerable expense. Maybe for 1988-89 it would not be too much to expect improvements in that area. If family law tribunals are not to be set up, I see no reason the Department cannot see fit to have a special day for family law sittings in each town so that people in our society engaging in family law proceedings will not have to do so in the intimidating atmosphere of a criminal court which is what is happening at present. I do not see that there would be an extra cost on the Department of Justice in having a special family law sitting day once a month in the major District Court towns throughout our country. It would go some way towards alleviating the adversarial and intimidating conditions that face family law litigants at present.

On the question of legal aid, I regret to have to stand here and watch the demise, monthly, of the legal aid system here. Our Constitution states specifically that we should cherish the children of the nation equally but as far as legal aid is concerned there is certainly not equal access to justice. Legal aid centres around the country are not operating half as much as they should be. In some areas legal aid centres have closed down. For many years Dublin and Waterford were the nearest law centres to my area. In March 1987 it was announced, amidst considerable publicity, that a legal aid centre was to be provided and made operational in the town of Portlaoise. I would like to know from the Minister for Justice the number of cases that centre has processed and how many working days per month it is operating. My information is that is has almost ground to a halt and that is particularly sad.

So far as the Law Reform Commission is concerned I would like to see a close relationship between it and the Department. I would like to see the Government acting and responding more quickly to the Law Reform Commission reports. The commission has done a lot of good work in the past. I would hope that it will continue to do so and I hope that the Government does not allow too many of the Law Reform Commission reports to lie gathering dust.

Reference was made by previous speakers to the extradition matter with particular regard to the unfortunate events of the past few days. The time has come to remove the extradition applications from the remit of the District Court entirely. We had considerable confusion over last week's decision in Portlaoise. Earlier we had confusion over a hearing relating to the same gentleman in Portlaoise some three weeks ago when initially the District Justice granted the order and then, 20 minutes later appeared to change his mind for no apparent reason. The seriousness of this matter demands the attention of a Circuirt Court judge. The day has come to review this is a matter of considerable urgency.

Let me just address one final question to the Minister which I hope he might refer to in his reply, that is, the question of the family mediation service. I understand the pilot project is to be completed at the end of July 1989. Perhaps the Minister could address his thoughts to the future of that service.

Mr. J. Bruton

I have a few remarks to make about this. The first thing I would like to refer to is the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds. There have been very long delays here. The Minister makes the point that this service pays for itself. It seems to me if it pays for itself it should not suffer the rigours of the Government embargo on staffing because it is obvious that additional staff taken on in the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds would speed up the registration of deeds, thereby increasing the annual income of the registry and making commerce and business more efficient without costing the State an extra penny because the extra revenue would pay for the additional staff. It seems to me to be arrant nonsense to apply an embargo of this kind to a body that could pay for its own staff from the extra revenue it would generate.

The Department of Justice Estimate is an extremely large one. The expenses involved are very substantial. It is one of the biggest cost elements in the total State expenditure and it is important, in these times when we are seeking economies, to look at ways in which one could provide a more cost-effective justice service and perhaps to apply a little bit of lateral thinking to the way in which justice is operated.

One of the things that is constantly put forward as a justification for more spending on the Garda is the increase in reported crime. I would ask the Minister if he would inquire to see if there is any correlation between the rate at which particular crimes are reported and the extent to which people are insured against those crimes. For instance, is there a very high rate of reportage, for example, of car thefts but a relatively low rate of reportage of other thefts against which people are not insured, and does the mismatch lead to an allocation of resources that is less than optium? For instance, a general household survey of burglary in Britain has shown that over the past ten years there was an increase in the crime rate for burglary but that this had more to do with reporting behaviour among victims in respect of insurance than it had to an actual increase in burglaries.

The prison service is enormously expensive. I remember doing a study a few years ago as to the areas of Government spending that had shown the greatest increase between 1970 and 1980. The biggest by far was health and the second biggest of all Government spending over that decade was prisons. We have to try to find other ways of accommodating offenders. I am not sure of the figures but I think the cost of a prison place annually — perhaps Deputy Colley may be able to correct me on this — is somewhere in the region of £20,000 to £25,000 a year. If people could be kept out of prison and deterred from committing crimes we could do an awful lot of other things with the money we saved.

Let us take as an example the system operating in New Mexico where drunk drivers, and this could apply to other petty offenders, are confined to their own homes. One may ask how one would keep them there but in New Mexico they use a system known as the electronic bracelet, which is worked using a radio frequency. If those people are not where they are supposed to be during the relevant hours, this shows up on a central recording device. The equipment which they operate in New Mexico might be extremely expensive but it could hardly be more expensive than keeping these people in prison. The way the system works is that these people are confined to their homes during the hours they are not working and this enables them to go out and earn a living for themselves and their families. In effect, they are imprisoned in their own homes during the non-working period of their day. Can the Minister tell us whether such a system has been considered?

I do not want to refer to any particular case but we hear stories of people currently in prison who have large sums of money which are being used for various purposes. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that those in prison who can afford to make a contribution towards the cost of keeping them in prison should be asked to do so. Why should they not be asked to do so, given that it costs more to keep them in prison than in the Berkeley Court Hotel?

Miss Colley

Out of the proceeds of the crime.

Mr. J. Bruton

Unfortunately, it appears that it is much easier to convict persons of crime and put them in jail than it is to get the proceeds back. I am not suggesting that the money which might be available would necessarily be the proceeds of a crime because people may be independently wealthy for perfectly legitimate reasons and still commit an offence. I am not concerning myself with the way in which that happened, legitimate or otherwise, but why should they not make some contribution towards the cost of keeping them in prison? This may be a rather original and different approach but that is no reason why the Government should reject the suggestion. It would, of course, require legislation but, again, that would not be an obstacle if the Government decided to implement it.

Those are just two suggestions on the prison service. Another suggestion which I would like to make is that, instead of putting people in jail, they should be asked to make restitution to the victim of a crime. I am aware that magistrates in Coventry in England operate a system whereby a sentence can be deferred to see if a private contract can be entered into between the victim of a crime and the offender under which the offender would agree over a period to make agreed restitution to the victim, financial or in kind. If an agreement is reached the judge can take account of this in passing sentence and he can simply decide to pass no sentence or pass a deferred sentence conditional on the agreement being honoured.

It would be much better to keep those people out of prison, working in the community and making restitution to the victim, rather than putting them into prison where it costs the State between £25,000 and £30,000 a year to keep them. As well as that, by the offender making some restitution to the victim, the victim would be relieved of some of the trauma victims suffer in particular now that we no longer have criminal injuries compensation, and it would give the offender a sense of expiating the offence. Everybody would gain, the State, the victim and the offender, from such an approach and I think this suggestion should be considered actively by the Government.

I would now like to refer to the cost of the Garda Síochána, the largest element listed at £273 million. I believe substantial savings could be made without there being any reduction in the effectiveness of the service provided. I understand that it is the policy of the Garda Síochána to have two man patrol cars. Obviously it costs so much to run the car but it costs a good deal more to pay the occupants. A survey was carried out in San Diego where a system of one man patrol cars was introduced. It was demonstrated as a result that there was an 83 per cent saving in costs with minimal loss of effectiveness. Given that people can radio for help, most of the incidents a patrol car comes upon can be dealt with by adopting a commonsense approach and with the intervention of one person. Obviously there will be occasions when that person will need help and on those occasions a garda should be prudent in his approach. Do we need to operate a system of two man patrol cars in all cases to cope with those occasions when it is necessary to have a second person present? What sort of savings could be obtained from adopting such an approach? I would say fairly substantial.

Legal aid is a major expense and it seems there might be a case for making it compulsory on individuals who enter into certain types of contract which are liable to end up in litigation to make provision under the terms of the contract for compulsory insurance against legal costs resulting from any dispute. Instead of the taxpayer having to pick up the cost, an insurance fund should be established to meet the cost. Only those entering into contracts of that kind should pay.

On a more fundamental level one must ask why should it be necessary to have legal representation to get justice? I know the legal profession will answer that question by saying that it is not necessary and that any man or woman is entitled to go into any court and plead their case but, as we know, they are not in practice really able to do so. It seems that the role of the judge needs to be examined. Should it not be the case that the judge should not be a person sitting back and allowing advocates to make the case but rather someone with a more inquisitorial role to play, seeking the truth rather than waiting for the truth to be presented to him? If a judge adopted such an approach, would it not obviate the need for legal representation in many cases?

I know this suggestion is contrary to the adversarial system upon which our system of justice is based and is closer to the continental system but, as I have said, lateral thinking in regard to an area of expenditure as large as this is entirely justified. The original concept of justice was that the ordinary citizen could go to some place or person to get justice such as the king who went out to meet his subjects and make decisions on any disputes. Recently courts have become much more arcane in their operations and now a person must have someone to speak for him. It would seem to make sense to consider returning to the original concept of a court as a place where people go after doing certain things themselves and where a judge seeks to dispense justice rather than waiting for the facts to be presented to him.

Miss Colley

First simplify the legislation.

Mr. J. Bruton

Not necessarily, because a judge is supposed to understand the legislation. A judge is trained in law so why does he need to have advocates explain it to him? A system along the lines I suggest would require the appointment of far more judges but would it not be less expensive to appoint more judges than to spend as much as we are spending on legal aid? I ask the question; I do not necessarily answer it.

The other question I want to ask in that context is, would it not be wise for the Government as a deliberate policy — and perhaps the Minister should discuss this with the Minister for Industry and Commerce — to seek compulsory arbitration clauses to be inserted into more private contracts so that people could settle their disputes by an agreed system of arbitration rather than have it end up in the courts: in other words, transfer the burden from the public sector, which is the courts system, to the private sector. I do not understand why that could not be done as a matter of deliberate Government policy so that the courts would deal only with cases they have to deal with. I believe that would save considerable amounts of money. I hope the Minister in his reply to the debate will respond to some or all of the suggestions I have made, all of which are designed to help the Government reduce their overall expenditure.

Mr. Durkan

With regard to the question of general policing, one of the points which comes up frequently at public meetings in constituencies is the deployment of man or woman power in the Garda Síochána and the need for the optimum utilisation of the manpower that is available. That takes into account the number of motor cycles, gardaí, ban ghardaí, patrol cars, etc.

Because of expanding populations, new demands arise all the time. It is amazing that in some densely populated but newly developed areas, such as the area in which I live, it is much easier to get a response from some emergency services than it is from others. For instance, the fire or ambulance services can respond instantly to a distress call but — obviously this is because economies have to be made and in some cases policies are such — it is more difficult for the general public to get a response from the Garda Síochána. There have been a number of complaints in relation to this, particularly from people in the newly expanding areas. In many of those areas the Garda stations close down between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. or 12 midnight and 8 a.m. thus leaving some areas at the mercy of would-be hoodlums of one kind or another. People like to think they have the security, at the end of a telephone, of being able to call on someone for assistance who will respond quickly. However, given the resources at their disposal at present, the Garda Síochána, with the best will in the world, are not in a position to respond in all such instances.

I want to give a microcosm of the position nationwide. In the Maynooth, Leixlip and Celbridge area there is a population of about 25,000 or 26,000 people but after a certain time in the evening no Garda station in that area is open. People who live in an area in the centre of the city with a similar population would not be too far away from another Garda station which would be open — but this is a serious problem in rural areas. The patrol car from Naas which operates in that district does not cover the Leixlip area because it is in the Dublin metropolitan district. It covers Rathcoole, Celbridge and Maynooth. This is quite a distance and if emergencies occur in Maynooth and Rathcoole at the same time this makes it very difficult for the Garda Síochána to respond quickly to these emergencies.

I do not accept the responses I have received to this matter from the Minister, the Garda Commissioner or Garda superintendents. It should be possible to have a patrol car — and it is immaterial whether it is a one or two-person patrol car — or a patrol car and a motor cycle constantly on the road from the time the stations close until they open up again. They should be on patrol in those areas so that they can respond to calls within five minutes or ten minutes. A response within ten minutes is not unreasonable to expect when you can get the ambulance service or fire service to respond within that time. If there was more than a ten minute or 15 minute delay in the response of the fire brigade, people and public representatives would immediately be up in arms.

The Garda Síochána provide an essential service and it is up to the powers that be to ensure that the mechanisation is in place whereby they can respond to calls. There is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done. I accept the old story that there is a shortage of manpower but I am trying to point out the ways in which the manpower can be deployed so as to obtain the maximum benefit from the resources available. I ask the Minister to take that into account and in relation to the areas I have mentioned, to provide a patrol car or motor cycle on a round-the-clock basis during the hours the stations are closed. Despite all the replies to the contrary, this would be possible. Before anybody replies to me and says there already is a patrol car in that area, I know there is a patrol car but it does not cover the areas I have mentioned.

I congratulate the Garda, the Minister for Justice and previous Ministers for Justice on the success of the neighbourhood watch scheme. That has done a great deal to bring communities and the Garda Síochána together in their efforts to defeat criminals or would-be criminals. It also creates an awareness among the young people whose parents are involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme that somebody somewhere will help them and their neighbours in their efforts to combat crime. There are many competing forces of a destructive nature which can influence young people, whether it is the media generally or what they read, hear and see. There is a general contempt and disregard for property, authority and life. Some of the more recent and horrific crimes we have seen — and I will not make reference to any case in particular — are of such a nature as to give me, and I am sure everybody else, the impression that the inspiration for such did not come normally; the people who committed those crimes must have had some heinous inspirations from some quarter. I am not going to digress into another area about these influences but I honestly believe they are not natural reactions. They must surely be inspired by something people have read or seen in newspapers, television or radio. We have to look at the possible consequences those influences will have in the future.

I want to refer to two other points. In some instances the response to the general public brings the law into disrepute. I have dealt with some of these cases and I am sure everybody else here has done likewise. In the case of the ordinary law abiding citizen going about his or her business, whose car happens to be in collision with a stolen car, the thieves escape and the law abiding citizen is injured and perhaps ends up in hospital. What happens in that situation? The answer is nothing. The insured and law abiding person, interfering with nobody, will be the victim and the perpetrator of the offence, because no claim will be lodged, will get off scot free. I have known of one such case where the victim had six months' stay in hospital and there was no malicious injury claim because malicious intent could not be proved. As a result, that unfortunate victim was out of work for six months and merely got sick benefit. He was a completely innocent victim of a crime over which he had no control whatever and was comprehensively insured. We need to be thinking about changing legislation to meet such instances. One or two serious instances like that are inclined to bring everything associated with the law into disrepute.

I want to mention also the delay in the making of payments through the criminal injuries tribunal. There can be very long delays after the decisions have been made and victims have to wait so long for payment that they consider themselves once more victims. That brings people to believe that if there is justice out there, it is a long way off.

I do not want to become involved in individual cases and again this is purely a layman's view. We have heard in this House over the last number of years various reactions to judgments in the courts. Some judgments were valid and perhaps all were — I do not know. Certainly, they caused concern and discussion, animated discussion at times. The public need to feel that the courts will rule consistently and fairly and entirely in response to the facts. I am quite sure that it is never the case — and I would sincerely hope that it is not — that judgments are handed down not simply on the basis of the facts presented to them. There should be no consideration whatever given to any other influences or consequences. The decision would then be consistent and would stand up to any scrutiny. Political or other considerations regarding the consequences of conviction shall not at any time be taken into consideration. I say that merely because there has been quite considerable comment, in this House and outside it, on various decisions reached in the courts, sometimes in a positive way and sometimes in a negative way. It is not possible for decisions of the courts to be popular with the public at all times — we accept that. However, there is an absolute need for consistency, for having regard solely and wholly to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and the general good at any time.

Acting Chairman (Mr. S. Walsh)

I call Deputy Desmond O'Malley, who has just a couple of minutes.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I should like to refer, and can do so only briefly in the short time at my disposal, to the extradition problem which faces us at present and which I regard as extremely serious. On one day this week, seven people were murdered in Northern Ireland. It is possible that, either now or at some time in the future, those who perpetrated those seven murders will come into this jurisdiction. It is quite possible that the Garda Síochána may be able to arrest them. There may be evidence available against them. It is intolerable that we are not now in a position to extradite people such as those, even if the evidence is complete.

Nobody has been extradited out of this jurisdiction to Britain or Northern Ireland since some time last year. There have not been any extraditions since the latest legislation was passed in December of last year. I do not know how we can continue in this situation, given the position that exists in Northern Ireland and the degree of violence there. The matter will have to be addressed very seriously by the Government, by the Department of Justice. They will have to start from the basis that they cannot accept a continuation of the present situation. I know that it is difficult, because there are demands for protection of the rights of individuals on the one side, but there are huge demands and needs on the other side also. I do not know how, as a civilised country, we can continue this situation indefinitely.

That is one aspect and perhaps the most important aspect of the position on crime in the country today. It is disappointing to read the comments of the Minister this morning on crime as if things were improving, were almost satisfactory here. The truth of the matter is that last year there was a decrease in recorded indictable crime. The main reason for that is that most people now have given up reporting crimes unless they are very serious. That is the truth of the matter. The Garda Síochána Commissioner recently announced a further increase in the early part of this year in recorded crime. That to my mind is very alarming, given that much crime is not recorded at all. More consideration is needed than was shown in what the Minister said this morning. It is not the brevity of what he said, because the nature of this debate causes everybody to be brief, but it is the relative complacency concerning what is happening, in a country where virtually everybody is now living in fear and where, for elderly people in particular, it is a real nightmare. It is hard to believe that this is the same country as the one in which 30 years ago people never locked their doors, and were never the subject of a criminal attack, burglary or breakin. If there was an incident in a particular locality, it was the talking point for months. Nowadays, armed robberies frequently get one or two sentences in a middle page of a newspaper, where they would have got banner headlines before. It shows the State that we have got to.

I welcome moves that have been made recently towards the reorganisation of the Garda Síochána, but it seems to have been done on an ad hoc basis, at the insistence of the Commissioner. This is the sort of matter that should be the subject of a White Paper by the Government and should be debated properly. Down the years I did not favour the idea of an authority for the Garda Síochána because, having been Minister for Justice myself for a number of years, I took the view that a great deal of the work of the Garda Síochána is related to quasi-political, or allegedly political, violence and it was necessary that the Government of the day should have direct contact with the Garda in countering such activity. I am still of that view in so far as that end of things is concerned. I wonder if, for the more general duties of the Garda Síochána, it is not now appropriate to consider the question of a Garda Authority. The manner in which things have developed vis-á-vis the Garda in recent years has not been entirely successful and the Garda are the first to acknowledge that. For that reason, a different approach might now be appropriate.

While the incidence of crime is extremely worrying and needs far more attention and concern than has been exhibited by the Minister in the debate here, the most difficult and important short term aspect of it is the lack of extradition from this country at present and the Government should be called on to make a full statement on the matter without delay.

Minister of State at the Department of Energy (Mr. Smith)

I wish to thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. In spite of the limited time, which was agreed by the Whips, Deputies managed to cover a wide area including some which are outside the scope of an Estimates debate.

The Justice group of Estimates covers six Votes in all and accounts for net expenditure of approximately £367 million this year. The biggest of the Votes is that for the Garda Síochána where there is a net provision of £273 million. One of the most important points which must be made in relation to this Vote is that the Government have decided that 1,000 appointments should be made to the Garda Síochána over the three year period 1989 to 1991 from a recruitment competition to be held later this year. The competition will be on the basis of new entry qualifications and recruitment procedures and those recruited from the competition will undergo a radical new training programme.

There is a programme for the rebuilding and refurbishment of the Garda Training Centre, Templemore, over a three year period and it is expected that the work will get under way later this year. The programme will provide the Garda Síochána with a modern training college, as modern a college as in any police force. It will be implemented on a phased basis so as to ensure sufficient accommodation for the proposed intake of new recruits.

Provision is also being made to enable the modern technological facilities required by the Garda to be provided. The rural part of the new national communications network is operating very efficiently in all Garda stations outside the Dublin metropolitan area and a new system for the Dublin metropolitan area is planned to come into operation later this year. Approximately £20 million has already been spent in this area up to the end of last year and a further £3.5 million is being provided for this year.

The Garda Commissioner made a number of proposals recently for changes in organisational procedures in the Garda Síochána and these have been approved. The establishment of a Garda advisory group was also announced recently. All of these developments underline the fact that every effort is being made to ensure that Garda resources are deployed as effectively as possible in meeting our policy needs and that optimum use is made of all of the resources available.

In this context Deputy Colley raised the question of disbandment of the Garda Task Force. Arising from the ongoing review of Garda structures and procedures, the Garda authorities decided to replace the central crime task force based at the Dublin metropolitan area headquarters, Harcourt Square, with separate task force units in each of the five Garda divisions in the area. The Garda authorities consider that this reorganisation will lead to a more efficient and effective use of resources. The Garda authorities have no plans to disband the special task force based at Harcourt Square and operating throughout the State as required.

Deputy Barrett and others raised the increased incidence of crime. Crime is a topic to which the Government continue to give close attention. The level of recorded indictable crime at the end of 1987 showed a decrease of 17 per cent over 1986. In that period various disturbing forms of crime such as drug abuse, attacks on the elderly, joy-riding and armed raids had emerged. This type of crime has been and is being successfully controlled and as a result the statistics for the end of 1987 indicate that the incidence of all these types of crime has dropped significantly over the past few years. Despite this, of course, there is no room for complacency. The fight against crime must go on. The figures for the first four months of the year which show increases in crime in the Dublin area are being closely monitored by the Garda authorities. It must be pointed out that statistics over the short periods are of limited value only as indicators of long term trends and in this context it is interesting to know that the preliminary indications are that the increase in the first four months of the year is not being maintained.

Another point about crime, and a very important one, is that the community must take steps to help themselves. In this context it is very encouraging that there are now almost 600 neighbourhood watch schemes involving approximately 145,000 households throughout the country.

Overtime working in the prisons has been a matter for concern as the House has been told previously. In 1986 the cost of overtime was £13.4 million. Two hundred extra staff were recruited in late 1986 and early in 1987 and this led to a reduction in overtime expenditure to £10.3 million. As overtime expenditure was still too high, a further 200 extra staff were recruited and this enabled a new rostering arrangement to be introduced. On this basis the Government decided that the overtime provision for this year should be £6.3 million.

This approach led to opposition by the Prison Officers' Association which culminated in a withdrawal of labour by members of the association which lasted from 16 April to 14 May of this year. An agreement between the Minister and the association which led to the settlement of the dispute provided that there would be an independent review of working arrangements and that any claims in relation to compensation would be processed under the conciliation and arbitration scheme.

Another very important matter in relation to prisons is the unrelenting pressure on accommodation. Every effort has been made, however, to preserve and, where possible, improve the quality of the regimes operating at the institutions. The quality of the accommodation is only one aspect of the regimes. Other factors are also very important and in this context specific mention should be made of the provision for education and work training programmes in the prisons and places of detention. The equivalent of 97 full time teachers operate in the institutions provided mainly by vocational education committees.

The Criminal Justice (Community Services) Act, 1983, is a vital ingredient in the overall penal system and was referred to by many Deputies. The Act provides for an alternative to imprisonment by providing that offenders can be required by the courts to perform a specified number of hours unpaid work for the benefit of the community. Since the Act came into operation in December 1984, 2,981 orders have been made.

The courts of justice also have a Vote of their own in the Justice group, as the Minister has broad responsibility for providing the services necessary to enable the courts to function effectively.

Accommodation is one of the aspects of the courts which comes to mind. Outside the Dublin area the provision and maintenance of court accommodation is vested by law in local authorities. In Dublin it is worth noting that nine additional courtrooms have been provided within the last few years by the Office of Public Works. It is hoped to provide four more new courtrooms in the Four Courts complex when the necessary finance becomes available.

It is important where possible to streamline procedures in court offices to speed up the manner in which business is dealt with. An important development in this area has been the replacement of special adhesive stamps in court offices by accepting direct payments of cash, cheques etc., and using franking machines and cash registers to impress documents with the record of payment.

There have been delays in the hearing of High Court civil actions averaging 12 months countrywide and up to 32 months in Cork. The President of the High Court has been taking steps to deal with delays particularly those in Cork where he has been arranging special extra sittings. Delays in hearing civil actions are not always related to court sittings and in many instances cases are not pressed forward by legal advisers in the interests of their clients, for example, while awaiting final medical assessment of the likely long-term effects of accident injuries. It is understood also that a substantial amount of business in Cork is taken by a relatively small number of counsel and this inevitably means delay until counsel can reach cases. The provision in the Courts Bill, 1986, proposing the abolition of jury actions in personal injury cases should reduce the number of cases coming to the High Court and will certainly reduce the time taken to deal with them.

Some Deputies have referred to extradition arrangements and there have been suggested changes in procedures, some of which would involve legislative changes. At this stage I would like to remind the House that there is a provision in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, for the annual report to the House on the operation of extradition arrangements. It is the Government's intention to review the operation of extradition arrangements and report to the House as soon as may be possible after 1 January next. That will be a comprehensive review. To propose change now in the light of one or two cases is not necessarily the best course of action. The review I mentioned earlier will be a much more satisfactory approach to the matter and this broader approach to the question should be welcomed by all sides of the House.

Mr. S. Barrett

It is also a Private Members' Motion.

Mr. Smith

Deputy McCartan referred to deaths in prison. The deaths which occur from time to time in prison are a matter of deep regret. I understand, however, there are a number of parliamentary questions put down to the Minister for Justice on this subject for answer next week, at which time the matter can be gone into in greater detail. However, I ask the House to accept that in general the unfortunate reality is that where an individual offender is determined to take his or her life there can be severe limits to what the prison authorities can do to prevent this.