Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jul 1989

Vol. 391 No. 5

Estimates, 1989. - Vote 19: Office of the Minister for Justice ( Revised Estimate ).

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £18,408,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, 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 propose that all the Votes for which I am responsible be taken together. In the short time available to me for reply I shall endeavour to answer any questions put to me on any particular Vote.

The total Estimate for all Votes for which I am responsible is £376,200,000, an increase of £13,208,000 or 3.6 per cent above the expenditure for these Votes in 1988. The Estimate is made up as follows:

Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice £18,408,000;

Vote 20 — Garda Síochána £278,634,000;

Vote 21 — Prisons £59,573,000;

Vote 22 — Courts £11,670,000;

Vote 23 — Land Registry and Registry of Deeds £7,806,000;

Vote 24 — Charitable Donations and Bequests £109,000.

Pay and allowances etc., account for 84 per cent of the total estimates and show an increase of 6.8 per cent compared with 1988.

The net provision for the Garda Síochána Vote for 1989 is £278,634,000. Salaries, allowances and overtime account for some £211 million of this amount and the superannuation provision is £44.6 million. The other major items are £9.36 million for travelling, subsistence, compensation and miscellaneous expenses; £6.84 million for Garda transport; £5.12 million for postal and telecommunications services; £3.69 million for the purchase, rental and maintenance of radio, computer, office and other equipment; £3.56 million for station services and £1.75 million for uniforms and accessories.

The overall financial allocation for the Garda Síochána this year represents an increase of 2 per cent over the 1988 allocation. While some individual subheads show a reduction as compared with last year, I am satisfied that the allocations made are adequate to ensure that the community continues to be provided with an efficient Garda service. The Garda Síochána will continue to be provided with the resources they need to carry out their task of maintaining law and order which, of course, is of fundamental importance to every law-abiding person who wants to live in an environment of peace and security. Such an environment is equally important from the point of view of our national economic development.

Turning to the provisions under the individual subheads of the Vote, the provision for salaries and allowances takes account of the modified way in which the restrictions that apply to public service numbers generally have been applied to the Garda Síochána. The Government have approved the filling of promotional vacancies that arise in the force on a more generous basis than applies in the public service and the Government have further shown their commitment to ensuring that the Garda Síochána have the resources they need, by their decision, at a time of great financial restraint, to recruit 1,000 Garda trainees over the three-year period 1989 to 1991.

As has been previously indicated, the intention is that a total of 1,000 appointments will be made up to 1991 from the current recruitment competition. At least 340 Garda trainees will be recruited during this year. The first intake of 87 successful candidates commenced training in the Garda College, Templemore at the beginning of April and the second intake commenced training in the last week in June. Further intakes of 90 or so will be called for training at regular three-monthly intervals. Because of the new entry procedures which include higher educational qualifications, intelligence testing and a competitive interview, I have every confidence that the trainees taken on from this competition will be of the highest quality and will contribute in a significant way to the performance and good reputation of the force.

The provision for salaries represents an increase of 2 per cent on the 1988 allocation and takes account of the resumption of Garda recruitment this year. The provision this year for superannuation also shows an increase over the 1988 allocation, of the order of 7 per cent and this is accounted for by an increase in the number of pensioners, as well as increases in pension rates in line with Garda pay. Reductions have been made in the provisions for overtime, uniforms and transport. The provision for overtime shows a reduction of £650,000 on the 1988 allocation and is considered adequate to meet requirements. The provision for uniforms, £1.75 million, shows a reduction of £500,000 over the 1988 allocation. This reduction reflects the reduced demand for uniforms now that the period of high expenditure which was necessary to outfit the Garda Síochána in their new uniforms, has passed. The provision of £6.84 million for Garda transport reflects a reduction of £500,000 for the purchase of vehicles and reduced operating and other expenses, including the abolition of an annual payment to the Department of the Environment in lieu of motor tax. I am satisfied that these savings can be achieved without any serious effect on Garda operational efficiency.

The importance of ensuring that the Garda are provided with the benefits of all appropriate technological advances is fully appreciated and provision is made in the Estimates for funding developments in the Garda radio and computer areas. The radio network is operating very successfully in the 18 Garda divisions outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area, and the DMA system, incorporating a most modern computerised command and control system has been installed and is currently being brought into full use — it will be fully operational within the coming few weeks. Further development of the system is planned and financial provision has been made for this.

The Garda also have other modern computer systems at their disposal which are proving to be of great assistance to them in the investigation of crime, the checking out of stolen or suspect vehicles etc. All Garda divisional headquarters and other major Garda stations are linked into the Garda computer network and financial provision has been made this year to enable a further number of stations to be linked into the system and also to enable the system to be enhanced by the purchase of some additional computer hardware.

I have mentioned the task that we entrust to the Garda Síochána — the prevention and detection of crime and how important their success in carrying out that task is, to the wellbeing of each one of us. We have enjoyed a few years in which levels of reported crime actually decreased but 1988 figures indicate that levels rose again in that year. Indications so far this year are that crime figures may be going down again but it is not possible at this stage to be sure that this is a definite continuing downward trend. It is a matter for which we must all take our share of responsibility — the task of crime prevention is one that, in all fairness, we cannot expect the Garda to carry out on their own. In addition to the wide range of ordinary crime which they have to deal with, they have to contend also with the extremely serious security situation which continues to affect our country. It is in everybody's interest that we should assist the Garda in every possible way, with the detection of crime when we can help in any way with Garda inquiries but particularly, I feel, in the area of crime prevention. A crime prevented does not need to be detected.

The neighbourhood watch programme provides a means through which the public at large can work in partnership with the Garda in the interest of preventing crime. This programme has already won widespread acceptance among the general public. To date there are 783 schemes in operation throughout the whole country involving some 174,000 households. The Garda authorities consider that these schemes have had a deterrent effect on criminal activity, have improved co-operation and relationships between the public and the Garda, have increased awareness of home security and have helped to a considerable extent to provide reassurance for many people, particularly those living alone, who were experiencing fear and anxiety as a consequence of the crime levels in their locality.

I want to mention also the community alert scheme which is the rural equivalent of neighbourhood watch. This scheme was initiated by Muintir na Tíre in co-operation with the Garda Síochána to combat the problem of attacks on the elderly in rural areas. Again this involves the local community working in close liasion with the Garda to identify elderly people who may be at risk, to visit them and also to be alert to any suspicious happenings in the neighbourhood. I know the outrage that I feel when I hear of cowardly and often brutal attacks on elderly and isolated members of our society and I know that this outrage is very widespread. Muintir na Tíre and the Garda have devised an excellent scheme to help elderly people who may be or who feel that they are at risk and I would urge anyone who can do so, to participate in these schemes and help to make our country a safer place for our elderly neighbours.

Another important community-based initiative has been introduced in recent months in a number of Dublin areas. This is the community policing scheme. Such schemes are now operating in eight areas of the Dublin northern division as well as in Leixlip, Bray, Loughlinstown/ Bally-brack and Tallaght, involving 16 stations in all. These schemes involve the assignment of designated members to full-time patrol duties in a specific area with the intention that these members should become personally identifiable as the local Garda presence in their assigned area. They are the link between the local community and the Garda Síochána generally, they identify with the local community and help to build up good Garda-community relations in the interest of preventing and controlling local crime and vandalism.

I have no doubt that all of these schemes have the effect of building a strong and valuable partnership between the Garda and the public and are of valuable assistance to the Garda in getting on top of our crime problem. They embody the idea of partnership between the community and the Garda in the preservation of law and order. It is an idea which I very heartily welcome and one which I as Minister for Justice intend to positively support.

Before I leave the Garda Vote I want to say that it includes the costs associated with the dispatch of a Garda contingent to serve with the United Nations Transition Assistance Group in Namibia. Thirty-five members left for Namibia on 14 April and a further 15 will travel there in a few weeks. I am sure that the Members of the House will join with me in wishing them every success in their mission. We can be confident that the men and women of the Garda contingent will represent their country with honour and perform their duties in Namibia in a manner which will reflect credit on themselves and on the Force to which they belong.

I now turn to the Prisons Vote. The total allocation in the 1989 Estimates for salaries, wages and allowances is £41.878 million. This represents a 10 per cent increase over the Estimate for 1988. This substantial increase reflects the cost of additional staff required to operate new accommodation at Fort Mitchel, Spike Island and at Wheatfield, Clondalkin as well as additional costs arising in 1989 as a consequence of the public service pay agreement.

Deputies will be aware that pressure on prison accommodation has not shown any signs of easing off in the recent past. I am glad to inform the House, therefore, that this year's Estimates will enable 210 additional prison places to be brought into use, 50 places in Fort Mitchel and 160 places in Wheatfield.

The additional accommodation at Fort Mitchel has already been largely occupied. In relation to Wheatfield the House will be aware that this new place of detention was brought into use last month and its operation will be extended on a phased basis over the coming months.

The opening of Wheatfield will not, however, enable me to close any of our older institutions — the pressure on accommodation is such that they will simply have to continue in operation and to be maintained and upgraded as necessary. A sum of £4.28 million was allocated for this purpose in 1989 and work related to the upgrading of security and improvement of facilities generally is being undertaken in Mountjoy, Portlaoise, Cork, Arbour Hill, Loughan House and Shanganagh Castle.

In recent years significant progress has been made in bringing prisons' overtime expenditure under control. In 1986, the amount spent on overtime was £13.4 million and by last year expenditure was reduced to £6.3 million. The provision for overtime in the 1989 Estimates allows a similar amount of overtime to be worked as in 1988.

While the emphasis of what I have said in relation to this Estimate has been on the operation of the prison system, alternatives to imprisonment play a very important role in the overall penal system. The Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 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 my Department. The scheme of community service orders is being widely implemented by the courts. To date, over 4,000 orders have been made in respect of offenders who would — under the terms of the legislation — otherwise have received a custodial sentence on conviction. An allocation of £208,000 is provided in the Estimates in relation to certain expenses incurred in the operation of community service orders. Again this sum does not include the cost of probation and welfare service staff involved in operating the scheme.

Another area worthy of mention is the establishment of probation and welfare projects by voluntary committees in association with the probation and welfare service. Several probation hostels, workshops and resource centres have been set up and are intended to help young people from getting into trouble with the law and to help prisoners on release from prison. My Department provide grants towards the capital cost of establishing such projects and towards their running costs. The total provision under this heading in this year's Estimate is £1,385,000.

The court system also comes within the scope of the Justice group of Votes. The Minister for Justice has broad responsibility for providing the services necessary to enable the courts to function effectively.

My predecessor had occasion in the House last November to talk about District Court venues. The fact is, that bearing in mind modern means of transport and communication, we must seriously question the need to have as many as 250 locations for district courts throughout the country. They are expensive to maintain; indeed, so expensive in some cases that local authorities cannot find the money to maintain them. The result is an array of courthouses whose poor condition is a disgrace. The high number of venues is also wasteful of judicial and staff time. If the time spent in some of them were diverted into more central locations I have no doubt that the quality and efficiency of the administration of justice would be greatly improved. I am, therefore, having a departmental review carried out to help in determining to what extent the number of venues can be reduced. I expect the review to be completed shortly and I would hope to announce my proposals soon afterwards.

The 1989 Exchequer provision for the provision of legal services under the scheme of civil legal aid and advice is £1,738 million. While this allocation will not allow for any expansion of the Legal Aid Board's services in 1989, the board will be able to maintain its existing 12 full-time and 19 part-time law centres in operation throughout the year. The total cost of running the criminal legal aid scheme in 1989 is estimated to be £2.5 million including value added tax and retention tax, which are recouped to the Exchequer.

On the topic of law reform, because of the limited time and because I want to give more time to it on another occasion, I want only to say that I propose to move the restoration to the Order Paper of a number of Bills that were before the 25th Dáil on its dissolution. These are the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, the Video Recordings Bill and the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill. Other legislative proposals which I will be bringing forward will be announced by me in the normal way.

The Estimates include a provision of £204,000 for the first full year of operation of the office of the Data Protection Commissioner. The office of the commissioner was created under the Data Protection Act, 1988, which seeks to protect the privacy of individuals about whom personal data are kept without excessive regulation or the imposition of undue burdens on industry and business. The Act is now fully operational.

On Vote 23 — Land Registry and Registry of Deeds — another Vote for which I have responsibility, the continued increase in property transactions combined with the staffing restrictions common to the entire public sector continue to have an impact on the arrears situation in the Land Registry. There was, nonetheless, only a marginal reduction in output in 1988. The indication is that 1989 will see a further increase in workload and as an interim measure a number of clerical staff are being assigned immediately to the Land Registry. Work is also currently under way to identify other staffing needs. A computerisation programme is in operation and progress is being made in this area.

I am aware that the services provided by these registries are essential to the public interest and that very serious delays are occurring in the provision of these services. I intend as a matter of priority to examine the situation fully to see what can be done to remedy it.

As the House is aware, the Justice group of Votes covers a very wide area. It would not be possible to comment on all of these areas when moving the Votes. Deputies are, of course, free to refer to any of these areas during the debate and consideration will be given to all points mentioned. In so far as time allows, I will deal with points raised in the course of my reply to the debate. Otherwise, I will take note of them and act on the points I agree with.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister for Justice and wish him well in the very onerous task facing him for the duration of this Government. I realise that the Minister does not have any say in what portfolio is offered to him, but I find it difficult to understand that on this occasion in addition to allocating the Ministry of Justice to Deputy Burke, the Taoiseach decided to also offer him the Department of Communications. If I recall correctly, everytime Deputy Burke moved from one Ministry to another he managed to hawk along Communications with him. I am beginning to wonder if anybody in Fianna Fáil other than Deputy Burke is capable of dealing with Communications.

For the last two years I listened to Deputy Gerry Collins as Minister for Justice telling this House that there were many things in the Department that he would like to do, but that because of the onerous duties on his shoulders — in terms of dealing with security, the prison services, the Garda Síochána, the courts and the day-to-day running of the Department, not to talk about the many areas of law reform that remained untouched — he was just not physically able to get through the volume of work he faced daily. It is obvious that the Taoiseach is unaware of the type of work that goes on in the Department of Justice, despite the fact that he was there once himself, when he has allocated these two Ministries to Deputy Burke, whom I wish well. This is very hard to understand when we have on record the previous Minister for Justice telling us there were many areas of law reform that he would have loved to deal with but that he just had not the time or the staff to deal with them.

I sincerely hope the Opposition will not be muzzled at Question Time as a result of the allocation of two Ministries to Deputy Burke. If our Priority Question Time is to be divided between Justice and Communications, there will be uproar in this House because there are many areas in Justice that need attention. We do not intend to be silenced because of the Taoiseach's bad judgment allocating two Departments to a Minister who will have his hands full dealing with the Department of Justice. I sincerely wish the Minister well but it is important that it goes on the record of the House that we in Fine Gael are not happy that such a drastic step has been taken. This has happened probably for the first time in the history of the State. The security of the State and the many duties that rest on the Minister for Justice are sufficient for one human being and it is not reasonable to expect him to run two Departments efficiently.

Since the general election was called many Bills that were before the House will have lapsed. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it is his intention to reintroduce these Bills as soon as possible after the resumption of the Dáil. I refer to such Bills as the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, the Video Recordings Bill, which was at Report Stage, the Family Law (Protection of Children and Spouses) (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill which had just commenced. I understand also that there were many pieces of legislation in the course of preparation in the Department. I assure the Minister that he will have the full co-operation of this side of the House in dealing with any legislation which will bring about the necessary reforms in the area of justice.

I would like to see the re-establishment of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. In case the Minister is unaware, this committee was set up during the 1982-87 Fine Gael/Labour Government at the insistence of the Fianna Fáil Party; yet when they came into office in 1987 they chose not to re-establish that committee. It is time to correct that error and to recognise that Fianna Fáil, when in Government from 1987 to 1989, made a mistake in not having that committee re-established. Many pieces of legislation could be dealt with in that committee and many positive proposals could come from them. I would like to see that committee up and running before Christmas 1989.

I am extremely concerned that we have not yet seen the official crime statistics for 1988, despite the fact that these figures are available to the Garda Síochána, with the aid of technology, as early as February each year. I can readily appreciate that, politically, it could be very embarrassing for the Government, because my understanding is that that report shows an increase in crime and that these figures have been increasing steadily since 1987, despite the good work done by the previous Coalition Government from 1982 to 1987. Any objective observer will have to admit that during that period we succeeded in getting crime figures down but, unfortunately, they have increased steadily since 1987. I wonder why we have not yet seen that report. It is not just a question of having the figures from a statistical point of view. The report should indicate the direction we should take in tackling crime so that we can chart a proper course for the future in terms of dealing with the steady increase which has occurred. All of us have to admit that vicious crimes are being carried out on our streets.

In addition to the other Bills I mentioned, I sincerely hope that on the resumption of the Dáil in October we will see the immediate introduction of the Bill outlawing firearms and other dangerous weapons. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that people can walk the streets without being mugged or raped and that they do not live in fear of being attacked by criminals who, unfortunately, nowadays will use any type of implement carrying out their vicious crimes. I want that legislation introduced into this Chamber as quickly as possible following the resumption of the Dáil in October.

We realise of course that it is not just a matter of putting more gardaí on the streets or providing more prison places. We recognise there is a reason for the increase in crime. We are living in an environment where unfortunately there is high unemployment, bad housing and a lack of educational facilities for many of our citizens. As long as this continues, the resultant problems will fall into the lap of the Minister for Justice. We will end up spending more and more money on the Garda Síochána and providing prison places if we are not prepared to tackle the root cause of crime. If we take a look at the unfortunate background of a number of criminals, we will realise that there is and has been a breakdown in respect for the law of the land in communities who feel society is doing nothing for them. I accept that it is not the sole responsibility of the Minister for Justice to tackle all these social problems, but I hope that he, being a member of the Government, will see to it that many injustices will be eliminated. Ultimately, this will help those of us who have to deal with the Department of Justice.

I would now like to deal with extradition and to remind the Minister that the 1987 Amendment Act places a requirement on the Government. Section 6 of that Act states:

The Government shall, as soon as may be after the 1st day of January in each year beginning with the year 1989, make a report to each House of the Oireachtas on the operation in the preceding year of Part III of the Principal Act.

The previous Government showed a blatant disregard for both Houses of the Oireachtas in not producing this report. I now call on the new Minister for Justice to see to it that the Government carry out their statutory obligations without any further delay. I could not stress enough that it is very bad for a Government to show total disregard for the requirements placed on them under the law which states quite categorically what must be done. This is not being done. Unfortunately, I was removed from the House a couple of months ago when I tried to raise this matter. At that stage the Ceann Comhairle told me that there may be another day on which I could raise this matter. I am now doing so. There is no point putting sections into Acts unless we are prepared to adhere to them.

Another problem I would like to refer to is underage drinking which was dealt with in legislation about 12 months ago. It appears that certain sections of that Act are not being used. Unscrupulous retailers are still selling alcohol to underage children, and drink parties continue to take place in public places. The Garda Síochána have powers under the new Act to confiscate liquor from underage people in public places, yet it seems that this section is not being used. Why pass legislation if we are not going to use the powers in it? I would like to see those retailers who persist in selling alcohol to 12 year olds, 13 year olds, 14 year olds prosecuted. It is time we put a stop to this——

I intervene to advise Deputy Barrett that he has now some three minutes left of the time allocated to him.

It is farcical that we have only 15 minutes in which to discuss the Estimate for a Department of this size. I would like to have dealt with the drugs problem but, unfortunately, with only three minutes remaining I cannot do so. We will soon be taking up the presidency of the EC and I sincerely hope that the Minister will see to it that there is greater co-operation throughout Europe in dealing with this problem. The removal of the barriers in 1992 will make it easier to bring drugs from one country to another. There should be some central intelligence agency to deal with this problem, in particular the trafficking of cocaine and the new drug, crack, which we have read about.

In relation to the Garda Síochána, we will be pressing continuously this new Coalition Government to see that they bring about the necessary structural changes in the management and training of the Garda Síochána. I would like to outline some of these changes for the benefit of the House — the provision of qualified financial and personnel managers leading to more autonomy for the Garda Commissioner in the spending of funds allocated to the force; a move towards the principle of neighbourhood policing involving more flexible working hours and greater evidence of policemen on the beat; relieving gardaí of much of the paperwork by providing more civilian backup; a Juvenile Justice Bill to modernise the criminal law at present applying to children which would provide a statutory role for juvenile liaison officers; greater use of the Garda training college for in/service training courses; adequate resources for the proper development of the juvenile liaison scheme and a continuation of our support for the neighbourhood watch scheme and other such schemes involving the community in tackling the problem of crime.

In relation to the prison service, it is an absolute disgrace that we spent almost £60 million in this area without seeing any evidence that the present system of punishment is achieving anything. It costs the taxpayer approximately £600 a week to keep a person in prison. As far as I can see, it seems that people go in and out of prison like yo-yos and come out better criminals than they went in. It is time we looked at alternatives to custody. I would suggest that what is needed, and I have said this before, is greater imagination on the part of the Minister in dealing with the question of punishment. We cannot introduce alternative methods to custody without first supporting services such as the Probation and Welfare Service and the juvenile liaison officer's scheme. In fact, we could save money if we used more imagination and did not let some people out of prison when the prisons get overcrowded, to make room for others. As a result people who should serve their full sentence do not do so, while others, who should not be there at all, find themselves in prison.

The Deputy might now bring his speech to a close.

I call for greater imagination in this area. With your co-operation, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to make one or two more points on law reform. I ask the Minister — I have already done so by way of parliamentary question — to tell us if he is going to establish a family mediation service on a statutory basis, and if so, will it be put in place immediately. I ask him to introduce a new Marriage Bill to raise the marriage age from 16 to 18 years. As the Judicial Separation Act will come into being in October I ask him to provide civil legal aid for those who require help under that Act, and to set up a mediation service and any other services which are necessary to ensure that that Act will mean something——

I am sorry but I must now call another speaker.

I have stated already today that we will be opposing this Estimate for one simple reason. The taxpayer is being asked to spend in the reigon of £400 million in the area of justice. We could get better value for money. If this new Coalition Government show no signs of accepting our sensible proposal we can——

The Deputy has gone some what over time. The Chair has given him some latitiude.

——only come into this House and devise ways and means of changing that situation. I want to put on note that as long as we are in Opposition this farce of expecting a spokesman to deal with this matter in 15 minutes will be proclaimed crazy.

I call Deputy Mervyn Taylor.

The system should be scrapped, or changed altogether.

I wish to join Deputy Barrett in tendering my congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. I wish him the best of luck in his position.

I want to advise the House that the Labour Party will be opposing and voting against the set of Estimates presented by the new Minister for Justice who is also, in an unusual development, Minister for Communications. George Orwell in his book 1984 referred to the “Ministry of Thought Control.” The way to secure thought control in his view was to control the police the prisons, the courts and the airways. He also included the Army which the present Minister has not yet secured, but no doubt he is working on that. I regard it as a sinister and dangerous development that Justice and Communications have now been vested in one Minister. We all know the reason, of course.

Minister Burke was entrusted by the last Government with the task of ensuring that the public service character of our broadcasting service was removed and that the airwaves were privatised at the fastest possible rate. He has already made some progress in this task but I understand that the Fianna Fáil organisation at high level have decided that there is one remaining major element of the job to be done. That is why the Taoiseach has found it necessary to allow Minister Burke to carry the Communications portfolio with him wherever he goes. That element is the removal of RTE from the airwaves altogether.

Ever since the election it is common knowledge that top echelons of Fianna Fáil believe that RTE, with their insistence that health was the major issue in the election campaign, cost the party their majority. Fianna Fáil are determined that that will never happen again. That is why I confidently expect this Minister for Justice to devote a great deal of his time to ensuring that RTE live to regret the independence they showed during the campaign.

One might hope that the Minister would take some time out from his major task of emasculating RTE to consider at least some of the major problems and commitments in the areas for which he now has added responsibilities. The first area I want to mention is one in which there is now a major crisis — that is the area of free legal aid. Our legal aid system has undergone a period of crisis under Fianna Fáil and there are signs that matters will get worse. The essential reason is that Fianna Fáil do not care about the provision of free legal aid. First, there has been no overall increase in the funding of this scheme since 1982. In fact, in the Estimates we are examining for the Office of the Minister for Justice there is a reduction of 1 per cent in the grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board. This is at a time when the budgets of State legal aid agencies such as the office of the Attorney General and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be increased by 7 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively.

Secondly, four new centres were opened in 1984 and they are threatened with closure because no provision has been made for Exchequer funding for them. These are in Tralee, Athlone, Tallaght and Cork. In the case of the latter this is a second centre. These centres were opened and financed with money which is now virtually exhausted and no provision has been made by way of Exchequer funding to substitute for this money. At the end of this year the Legal Aid Board will be confronted with difficult decisions about their future operations. There will be a veritable crisis in the provision of civil legal aid under the scheme. It seems certain that decisions will have to be taken to close certain centres altogether with, or alternative to, decisions to run down the Legal Aid Board services generally.

To understand the full impact of this, in the recent past certain of the board's centres have been forced to close their doors to clients so that they could catch up on the backlog of cases which had already been taken on by them. Even when the centres are open, persons applying for an appointment have to wait for as much as six or eight weeks or longer before they can have a preliminary consultation. This can have very serious effects in that frequently proceedings have already been instituted and are pending before the court. This means that quite often barring procedures, for example, have to be adjourned and delayed to allow for legal representation. It is a legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. It is equally clear from any examination of the record of Fianna Fáil in this area that they have little or no interest in the provision of justice for those who cannot afford access to the courts.

Deputy Barrett made reference to the new area of need for legal aid that will arise under the Judicial Separation Act which is to come into operation in the middle of October next. I made the point many times during that debate that it was essential that additional legal aid facilities be made available to enable people to avail of the new remedies being provided by that Act, otherwise there was no point in bringing those remedies in at all. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, gave an indication that he was going to arrange for some additional moneys that would be necessary to give real meaning to the new Judicial Separation Act so that those unfortunate people who need to avail of the new remedies would be able to do so. Where are the new moneys? They do not appear in this Estimate. In fact, there is a cutback in respect of the moneys that are needed. There is no doubt that the new Judicial Separation Act will trigger off a very great deal of new litigation under those new remedies, at least it should but it reflects no credit on this House that remedies becoming available under new laws will in effect apply only to those who can afford them, those who can have up front the £2,000 which the family lawyers charge. I had hoped that a supplementary or additional estimate would be moved to show that the Government were realistic in making that much needed facility available but I have been disappointed in that regard.

The new Act sets out as a pre-condition that the parties must avail of a mediation service before they can go before the court to get a judicial separation. We know the position regarding the mediation service. Their funding is running out this month, they having been in operation in a very scaled down version from a finance point of view, for the past three years. This is at a time when the services will be needed all the more. Where is the money for the family mediation services to come from to enable the Judicial Separation Act to operate in a proper manner, as this House which passed it intended it to do?

The same comments are true of criminal legal aid, which has suffered a drop of 10 per cent in these Estimates. For as long as Fianna Fáil are content to make those who are most marginalised — and in this case often most alienated — carry the burden of fiscal rectitude, they will find the Labour Party in strenuous and vigorous opposition.

In another area also, these are mean and petty Estimates. A couple of years ago an organisation was founded called The Irish Association of Victim Support. They were run largely on a voluntary basis and by very reputable people. They endeavoured to bring a measure of help, often in the form of counselling, to victims of crime. The association were set up in response to a long felt need. They have tried bravely to do that valuable work. For their pains they were rewarded a couple of years ago with a Government grant in the princely sum of £8,000. That grant has remained unchanged ever since. It represents a mere token in terms of the service that is needed. I understand that the association are about to cease operating, if they have not already done so. Their members simply cannot afford to carry on. It would not have broken the Exchequer — it would not even have been noticed — if this grant had been increased to £30,000 or £40,000. That would have done a great deal of good.

Clearly, the allocation to the Garda Complaints Board in the Estimates is grossly inadequate. We have all heard about the tensions and difficulties within the board because of overwork and understaffing but there has been no response from the Minister that the Government would provide us with any reassurance that this valuable work will be carried on.

The major area for which the Minister is responsible is, of course, the security of our citizens, particularly the old, the infirm and those living alone. This task is carried out in the main by our dedicated and hard-working Garda Síochána and I want to pay a tribute to them for the work they do, under-resourced as they are. The Garda have come under appalling increased pressure in recent years largely as a result of Government cutbacks. Between 1988 and 1989 alone the number of gardaí was reduced by 500 and it will be reduced by a further 500 before the end of this year. To this cutback in personnel must be added the continuing cutbacks in overtime, almost £2.5 million this year, and a draconian cut in the allocation for travelling. It seems that this Government's intention is to have fewer and fewer members of the Garda and to tie their hands as much as possible. It is little wonder, in the circumstances, that the number of break-ins to homes has dramatically increased in the past year or so. My own constituency of Tallaght, for example, has seen a dramatic increase in the number of burglaries and from talking to colleagues I know that the pattern is the same in other parts of the country. For instance, the town of Tralee suffered 49 burglaries in one recent month and the local Garda, there and in my own constituency, simply do not have the resources to respond effectively.

Another re-emerging phenomenon, which many of us had hoped we had seen the last of, is the curse of what is known as joyriding, youngsters who place their own lives — and the lives of others — at risk and who can only be taken off the streets by a Garda force which is adequately manned and equipped. From my own contacts with the Garda Síochána I know that they are worried, not only by the increase in this brand of dangerous and violent crime, but also by their inability to deal with it effectively. It is quite clear to me, from talking to many members of the force, that the Garda in general have little trust or confidence in this Government's determination to combat crime effectively. The record of cutbacks by the Government in this area speaks for itself and can inspire little confidence in any Member of the House.

I have some experience in the workings of our court system and the growing backlog, insufficient back-up staff and inadequate facilities in much of the system is becoming a major source of scandal. We urgently need reform in this area but it is the kind of reform which would cost money. We need to change the way people are treated in front of the courts, to improve the facilities which range in too many cases from the Victorian to the Dickensian. The system is in chaos and it is simply not good enough for the State to keep turning a blind eye to the conditions until such time as a district justice refuses to work in appalling conditions, which has happened from time to time. Within the last few days a district justice walked out of his court because the security provided by the Garda Síochána was inadequate and he could not sit in the court in security and safety. We need a crash programme of improvements in several areas. I call on the Minister to initiate such a programme as a matter of urgency.

The time has come for this Government to review a decision made by their predecessor to abolish juries in a range of High Court actions. This was pushed through by the last Government, it was ill-considered, wrong and a serious diminution of the rights of citizens. Perhaps just as important, at least from the point of view of the Government, the decision was totally ineffective in achieving the aims advocated for it. Damages awards have not come down, costs have not decreased and, as we have all seen in the last couple of weeks, insurance premia have continued to rise. The assurance companies lobbied longest and hardest for this change and they have behaved as if the change never occurred. The Government should now admit that a mistake was made and the law abolishing juries should be repealed.

Our prison system has been described as — and it is — an absolute disgrace. Since 1 January 1988 a total of seven people have died in prison custody in this jurisdiction. At an inquest held on one of these deaths the jury recommended that staffing levels in Mountjoy be increased. The Minister spoke approvingly about overtime expenditure being brought under control and substantially reduced. However, he should have another look at the implications of doing that. When the question of staffing levels in Mountjoy was raised following that inquest, what was the then Minister's response? He said that the question of staffing levels in each institution is kept under review in consultation with the various governors and is the subject of regular discussion with staff association representatives. As has been pointed out it would make a good script for the "Yes Minister" programme.

I am sorry, but the time allocated to the Deputy is now exhausted.

I have a number of other points to make and I agree with Deputy Barrett's remarks on the time limitation. Law reform is very important but it is an area in which we have fallen down very badly. Quite a number of measures were mentioned by Deputy Barrett and I just want to mention one, the most urgent need to update and reform the law of nullity. We are operating under — believe it or not — an 1870 Act under which the law is based on the rules of the old ecclesiastical courts of the last century. As has been pointed out, the Oireachtas has the duty under the Constitution to change the law and it has failed lamentably in this area.

I must now call another speaker.

It is time we had a modern statute providing for the granting of nullity decrees on fair, reasonable and clearly stated grounds.

I join previous speakers in welcoming the Minister to the Department of Justice and to wish him well in his endeavours. However, I share the concerns not so much influenced by Mr. Orwell's view of the world but more particularly about the capacity of any one person to take on two Departments. It has been argued for a long time — and I agree — that the Department of Justice should be broken down into lesser constituents, one dealing with Home Office-related affairs and the other dealing with matters of security and the prison service. I believe the Minister will find it virtually impossible to manage and to take care of the two portfolios and I ask him, in consultation at Cabinet, to suggest that perhaps a combination, which he carried during the last Government, of Energy and Communications should be considered as a way of dealing with this problem.

It would be a major source of concern to all who worked so hard in this House in the area of law reform and justice and all the matters of administration running from them to countenance the fact that work would not be undertaken by reason of the non-availability of the Minister. In this regard, one has to recall that the Minister for Justice is deeply involved in the affairs of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which requires attendance elsewhere than in the House.

At the outset of my contribution on this Estimate I should like to record unreservedly my condemnation of the outrageous behaviour towards the sanctity of life as perpetrated by the Provisional IRA in the murder of Mr. John McAnulty. He was a man of the community, an innocent person who did not deserve for any reason the brutal and callous taking of his life by the Provisional IRA. It would be very wrong of the spokespersons on Justice and law and order not to record our unanimous condemnation of that act. It appears that the Provisionals who have never had a mandate from the Irish people for their campaign of violence had a greatly reduced vote, through Sinn Féin, in recent elections North and South. Those elections indicated that the small number who were prepared to tolerate their activities in the past is dwindling. We should condemn their acts and congratulate the Garda Síochána on their successes in their fight against terrorism in this State and elsewhere.

The Workers' Party will be opposing this Vote for a number of reasons. It is appreciated, as advised by the Government Chief Whip, that it will be open to each Department to introduce an amending Estimate in the new session of the Dáil some time in October. Let us be constructive and hope that what is said in the course of the debate on this Vote today will be noted and that we will see an improvement in the activities of the Department when we reassemble in October. If there are no improvements there will be vehement and unrelenting opposition from The Workers' Party to the Minister's proposals. The Workers' Party will be opposing the Estimate if for no other reason than the operation of the civil legal aid scheme. It is an insult to suggest that on a 1 per cent reduction in the allocation to the Legal Aid Board in the coming year the services will be maintained. The Minister said he was confident that all centres will remain open and that the scheme will continue to operate.

He said:

While this allocation will not allow for any expansion of the Legal Aid Board's services in 1989 [That, in itself, is a matter of concern and will lead to inconvenience] the board will be able to maintain its existing 12 full-time and 19 part-time law centres in operation throughout the year.

That has not been the case in the recent past and the Minister must address it as a matter of urgency. Other Opposition spokespersons have referred to this problem and expressed their concern about it. The Legal Aid Board, and the centres which exist on paper, spend most of their time behind closed doors trying to deal with the huge backlog of work, leaving queues outside. Those people must wait months for appointments. As a result of the embargo on recruitment to the public service vacancies are not being filled. Law centres which prior to this worked with a complement of four solicitors now find themselves down as low as one solicitor and that person is expected to carry on an equal if not an increasing amount of work. The Minister should deal with the problem in regard to the Coolock Law Centre. The funding for that centre has been on a haphazard and cap-in-hand basis.

The second issue of concern to me is the question of district courts. I note it is the Minister's intention to continue with the review initiated by his predecessor but I should like to express a word of caution in regard to that. District courts, by definition, are courts of local venue and I am not at all keen on the notion that they should be overly centralised and removed from the districts they are expected to serve. It is a huge failing of our criminal justice system that an offender from an area removed, for example, from the Dublin city centre is dealt with in the city centre and may be back within his district without any person being aware that a criminal prosecution had been brought against him or a penalty imposed. The people of the community will not be aware that he had been dealt with by a court.

Over-centralising will make those courts less relevant and further alienate them from the community they are supposed to serve. I should like to urge the Minister to think carefully about that matter. It is clear that what is needed is a massive commitment of resources to the district courts. The example of two district justices being appointed when questions hung over their appointment indicates a certain matter-of-fact approach to the appointment and maintaining our district justices in their positions. The fact that a district justice in Kilmainham left the bench because he considered that conditions were impossible in mid-winter and that a district justice left the bench in Bridewell Court No. 6 because there was not order in the court suggests that a major problem exists. I understand that the Department of Justice have been made aware of the problem by the profession and the President of the District Court on numerous occasions.

The third issue I wish to raise relates to the Garda Complaints Board. We have heard reports that suggest there will be resignations from that board by people who cannot do their work. On the other hand, there are more than 1,000 cases waiting to be determined. Members of the Garda Síochána are completely demoralised, unsure of their future, unsure of their standing and status within the force. They are concerned to know if they will be allowed continue with their duties. The Minister should provide funding for that board as a matter of urgency. I could not find a reference to the Garda Complaints Board in the Estimate. It may be included under a global heading but, in my view, it deserves a subhead of its own because of its crucial contribution to the rights of people in the community. We should be told the amount of money that is being allocated to the board and if it keeps pace with the requirements of the board.

The Garda Síochána have been deservedly applauded by all sides of the House. The Minister has dealt with important areas of the work of the force in the course of his contribution such as community policing and the neighbourhood watch scheme. Those schemes can only work if the force is given modern equipment to service the demands on it. Too often we hear complaints by those involved in those schemes that they do not get any response to their reports to the local Garda station. That occurs because gardaí are over-stretched. I am concerned that in the Estimate there is a reduction of 11 per cent under the heading "Transport". A transport service is essential if a modern police force is to meet its requirements. I cannot understand how, if the Minister proposes to recruit more gardaí in the next three years and if he wants to maintain the force as a mobile and efficient unit, he can countenance a reduction of 11 per cent under that heading. The Minister should have another look at that allocation.

The JLO scheme, a crucial element of the armoury of the Garda Síochána in dealing with crime, does not operate at weekends because of cutbacks in overtime. JLO officers say that there is a greater need for their services at weekends, when parents are available to meet them and when children are not at school. However, those officers cannot work at weekends.

The Land Registry is in a shambles and I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a submission by the Law Society suggesting that an independent semi-State organisation be established to run that office. That is a revenue-earning organisation which provides a crucial service. It is impacting so seriously on the operation of conveyancing and on other areas of legal work that the Minister should give serious consideration to that proposal which, perhaps, is the only way to break the logjam. I welcome the decision to take on new personnel as a stop-gap measure to deal with the huge backlog but I have no doubt that when pressure builds up in another section of the Department, or in the public service, those people will be transferred. That has been the history since the linking of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds with the Department of Justice. They should be established on an independent semi-State basis and run in a commercial way and I have no doubt they would give good return in due time.

With regard to prisons, I note that the medical director has not been appointed, as recommended in the report on prisons compiled by Dr. Whitaker and his group. The Minister should make that appointment as a matter of urgency. As has been pointed out by a previous speaker, there were seven prison deaths in the last year. That must never be repeated. Life, though incarcerated, is not cheap and we must ensure that the highest regard is given to all those people who are detained in our prisons, of whom there are too many. There are almost 2,000 people locked up in prisons. Some of them should be doing community service and many others should be working in areas of non-custodial penalty. People who are not able to pay fines or who are unable to pay their debts in civil society should never be sent to prison as a means of securing sanction. This must be addresssd and dealt with. It is an outrage in this day and age that the poor go to prison for no reason other than that they are poor.

The allocation being made in the Estimate to the probation and welfare service and community service schemes is completely inadequate. On the one hand we are talking about £40 million to £60 million to keep people locked up, and on the other, we are talking about a miserly sum of thousands of pounds to run and develop a scheme which would keep people at some other form of non-custodial penalty. There is a total and complete imbalance there.

In that context, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that during the introduction of the Rape (Amendment) Bill — and I welcome its promised reintroduction — I wrote to his predecessor drawing his attention to the very well thought out submission of the Probation and Welfare Service to the need to set up schemes for the rehabilitation of rape and sexual offenders in prison. I asked that that be considered an element in the Rape (Amendment) Bill but I did not even get a reply, and the matter was ignored by the Minister when he introduced that Bill here. I hope the Minister will look at this. His staff have suggested that great work can be done in the rehabilitation area within prisons, and I would urge him to consider this.

The Minister is not going to close any of our existing Victorian institutions. If he will not do this, he must urgently look at the conditions in Mountjoy where all the people on one landing must use one, two or three latrines to empty their slop buckets after the night and then they wash close by to prepare themselves for the day. It is an outrage that any person, be he imprisoned or otherwise, should have to do this. There is no communication system between prisoners and officials in that prison. Prisoners in Mountjoy must bang on their cell doors to get attention and the windows are constructed in such a way that an unfortunate person can hang himself. If the Minister is not going to close these Victorian institutions, he must accept responsibility and ensure that conditions are improved.

The tenth issue of concern to me as spokesperson for The Workers' Party is legal education. The Minister——

I am afraid Deputy McCartan will not have any time to develop that matter now.

I am finishing. The Minister's predecessor indicated that there was a Solicitor's (Amendment) Bill in preparation. This Bill must be brought forward as a matter of urgency. The reform of legal education and the direct involvement of the Minister and the Minister for Education in the administration of the law schools, particularly at Black-hall Place and Kings' Inns, need to be attended to urgently. I appreciate that there is a lot on the Minister's plate, and other speakers will refer to many issues which must be attended to urgently. The Minister will receive co-operation from The Worker's Party when work is being done——

I am sorry, Deputy, but I must call the next speaker.

——but there will be opposition from us when these matters are not being attended to.

Sorry Deputy McCartan.

Deputies Allen, McGahon and Shatter rose.

I have a list here, but I do not know whether it is agreed, Deputy Bernard Allen——

I understand I am the next speaker.

I understand I am next.

I thought I was next.

Could we have a decision on this?

Perhaps I could continue while you are trying to sort it out.

Ní hea. The list I have indicates that Deputy Bernard Allen comes next.

I understood I was next.

Happily, this is between the one party——

I will give five minutes to Deputy Shatter, if that is agreeable.

I will only take a few minutes also. What is the time allocation?

I will take ten minutes and I am happy to give five minutes to Deputy Allen.

Deputy Shatter——

Do not forget me.

It is difficult for anyone to forget Deputy McGahon.

Thank you very much.

I will give way to Deputy Shatter for ten minutes.

Deputy Allen is giving way to Deputy Shatter for ten minutes, and he will have five minutes then.

What about Deputy McGahon?

Time is moving on. We have lost two minutes already. Will the Deputies settle for five minutes each?

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a Border Deputy I believe I have the right to say a few words, and I would ask you to bear that in mind.

We have until 6.20 p.m. Perhaps it will be possible for the Deputy to speak later. Can we proceed? Deputy Shatter for ten minutes and, by the agreement of the House, he will give five minutes to Deputy Allen. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Firstly, I want to join with other speakers in congratulating the Minister on his appointment. Like other speakers, I must express some incredulity that the Taoiseach saw fit to appoint Deputy Burke as Minister not only in the Department of Communications, which appears to be his own private preserve, but also in the Department of Justice. I can only assume that the reason for this multiple appointment arose from the distress experienced by Deputy Burke at being dislodged from the Department of Industry and Commerce by Deputy O'Malley in that Deputy Burke's views of the Progressive Democrats were broadcast very clearly to the nation on the night of the election count, and I presume his views have not greatly changed since.

I want to confine my comments to the area of law reform. Previous speakers have had time to deal with other areas but have not always had enough time to come back to this area. Firstly, I should like to put it on the record that I regard the Estimates being brought before us by the Minister as little short of scandalous in the context of dealing with issues relating to the law reform area. Indeed, it appears that the Minister is now reneging on commitments made by his predecessor and given to this House during the debate on the Judicial Separation Bill. I want to mark the Minister's cards on this, and to ensure that it is clear where responsibility lies when, and if, the unfortunate difficulties I anticipate will take place occur next October.

In October the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill will become operative, and I have no doubt that there will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of estranged spouses who will seek the assistance of mediation services and of the courts in sorting out their marital problems by using legal provisions which are not currently available to them. We had the commitment given by the previous Minister in this House that mediation services, which for the first time are given a statutory role, would be extended to meet the needs provided under the Bill. There was no mention by this Minister in his Estimate speech of what is to happen to the pilot mediation scheme which came to the end of its life at the end of July. They got a phone call or some sort of communication from the Taoiseach's office during the course of the election to indicate that they could continue until the end of the year. We do not know what the Government's intentions are. The Minister should clarify whether they intend to abolish the mediation service, the pilot service in Dublin or do they intend to preserve or extend it so that it can be fully utilised by estranged couples who want to avoid the necessity of going to court to resolve their problems.

We had a pledge from the Minister for Justice in the last Dáil that the legal aid scheme would be provided with the additional solicitors required to meet the needs which will arise under the Judicial Separation Bill. We have in this Estimate a cutback on the finance made available to the legal aid scheme at a time when most of the law centres only provide free legal assistance on an emergency basis. The legal aid scheme, the Government law centres, will find it impossible to cope next autumn with the demands which will arise as a result of the Judicial Separation Act unless the Minister provides those centres with additional resources.

It was clear during the debate on the Judicial Separation Bill that the impact of the Bill would stretch the court system, that there would be a great many people not only seeking help through mediation but who, for the first time, would be able to initiate separation proceedings before the courts to get recognition for the fact that their marriages have broken down and that additional personnel in the courts and additional judges would be required. I regard it as a matter of considerable disappointment that the Minister had nothing to say about this today. It seems that this Minister like his predecessor who was reluctantly pulled along in this House as a member of a minority Government into accepting the inevitability of the enactment of the Judicial Separation Bill, is avoiding putting in place the necessary administrative and other structures to ensure it works and provides help for those who require it. I am now putting the Minister on notice in this regard. There is still time for him to take the necessary action. Let no one in this House be in doubt as to who will bear responsibility for the difficulties, indeed the chaos that develops if the Government fail to provide the necessary court, administrative structures and mediation services under the provisions of this Bill.

I note with some curiosity that under law reform the Programme for Government, the new coalition's programme, proposes the provision of family courts along the lines of those suggested by the Law Reform Commission. Of course, there has been no detailed report produced by the Law Reform Commission setting out the structures of a new family law court. There was no mention of that in the Minister's introductory remarks.

We have already heard today that the agreement on law reform relating to telephone tapping is a matter of some mystery to the Taoiseach. I wonder is the commitment to provide family courts — as a separate courts structure — an equal matter of mystery. It has been omitted from the Minister's introductory remarks although he indicated that he would tackle some problems in the District Court area. It appears that the commitment with regard to family courts — which received publicity last week — has been thrown away this week once the Government has been formed. The Minister might clarify his intentions in those areas.

In this context of the law reform proposal perhaps the reason the Minister present is Minister for both Communications and Justice is that the Taoiseach — who today appeared to be unaware of the commitment given with regard to telephone tapping — might, if he had thought of it, be of the opinion that it would be easier to introduce a Bill on telephone tapping if there was one man in the Department of Communications and the same man in the Department of Justice, thus obviating any necessity for inter-Departmental documentation flying around to work out the exact parameters of such legislation. The Minister should clarify what is to happen in this area.

I note, more in sadness than in anger, that the law reform Bills to which the Minister refers — those before the 25th Dáil on its dissolution and which he is pledging to bring forward — do not include the Bill on genetic fingerprinting. It was only because the Fine Gael Party brought forward a Private Members' Bill on genetic fingerprinting in the last Dáil that the Government subsequently published their Bill. The Minister should state for the benefit of the House whether that Bill is now being ditched or genetic fingerprinting will become part of our law. It is now recognised in a variety of other jurisdictions that the facility extended to a police force to carry out genetic fingerprinting is an essential tool in the investigation of serious crime, in particular in the areas of rape, sexual assault and murder. Is the Minister now abandoning that legislation? If he is I will put him on notice; at the first available opportunity Fine Gael will reintroduce their Bill in this area.

The final area I want to address briefly — so that I can allow my colleague speak — is that in relation to legal education. Deputy McCartan referred to that briefly. It is my personal view that we need to radically reform our system of legal education. It is not good enough for the Minister for Justice, or indeed the Minister for Education, to wash their hands of legal education as regards the professions. It is ludicrous that under the Solicitors Acts the law society provide one system of education for solicitors, whereas the Bar Library provide a separate system of education for entry to the Bar. It is unsatisfactory that law graduates and other university graduates, potential participants in legal education under the aegis of the law society, have, on a number of occasions, in the last 12 months, had to come before the courts and litigate their way into entry to the legal profession. It is outrageous that that should happen. One occasion might be an accident but when it happens on two or three occasions — and there are other law cases pending — it becomes a scandal. New legislation should be brought before the House to provide for one major law school co-ordinated through the universities, with back-up from both the professional bodies and the Department of Education, and create a coherent system of legal education for entry into the professions. We do not have that. What we do have is the scandal of well qualified law graduates having to take to the courts to gain entry to a profession that is delimiting its numbers in a way it is not statutorily entitled to do. To date we have had a Government washing their hands of that issue. The Taoiseach told us today that, in his role as Taoiseach of the previous Government, he did not think he had given any commitment as regards a new Solicitors Act. The Minister's predecessor did give such a commitment. I want to know whether the present Minister intends introducing a new Solicitors Act in this House. I want to know what he intends doing to resolve the extraordinary problems apparent in general legal education. I want to give way now to my colleague, Deputy Allen.

Deputy Allen for a maximum of five minutes.

First I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I share the disappointment of other Members who see the role of a Minister for Justice as being not only in the area of security but also in the area of law reform. Like previous speakers I might express my disappointment at the manner in which the Minister has to divide his energies between the Departments of Communications and Justice. Especially in the area of security and telephone tapping I might express concern that the same Minister should hold the portfolios of Communications and Justice simultaneously. It is an appointment that causes me some concern — that this whole area is now under the control of one Minister, especially in the case of a Minister who is a member of a party with a bad history in that area.

With regard to the Estimate for the Department of Justice I am also disappointed at the Taoiseach's response today on the Order of Business that there were no plans to amend the Solicitors Act, 1954, and that legislation was not promised. I understood that legislation to amend that Act had been at a very advanced stage even during the term of office of Deputy Dukes in the Department of Justice. I should like to know what pressures have been exerted on successive administrations to kill the amendment of that Act. The Solicitors Act, 1954, is in need of urgent reform, as are the courts and the Land Registry which is now a disaster area urgently in need of additional resources so that it can provide the service and earn the revenue it has the potential to do.

Reverting to the amendment of the Solicitors Act, 1954, the behaviour of the legal profession in recent years has not improved. All that has improved is their public relations. The behaviour of a fair percentage of members of the legal profession, to say the least, has been disgraceful. Successive Governments have failed to act on behalf of the people to tighten up that whole area. We should remind members of the legal profession that the system of justice is not theirs to control for their exclusive use but should be provided as a public service.

At one stage we were promised the establishment of a complaints tribunal that would have lay involvement. We were told plans were afoot to have a lay observer monitor the performance of such a complaints tribunal, that the establishment of an arbitration body outside the courts system was being considered to deal with complaints against members of the legal profession. Yet nothing has happened. This whole scandal has been allowed to fester. Indeed I was disappointed that there was very little emphasis placed on that aspect today by previous speakers, members of the legal profession themselves.

With regard to qualifications for entry into the legal profession the law society must be told that it is not a yacht club that can control the input of its members. I contend that the Incorporated Law Society are keeping numbers down in order to maintain incomes at their present levels. Indeed the shedding of crocodile tears witnessed in recent days in relation to the shortage of solicitors is sickening, emigration being advanced as the cause. As legislators we should remember that it is a private body that exercises statutory powers under the 1954 Act without having any corresponding statutory accountability. Legislation must be introduced to put this right. At present it is acting in a scandalous manner in branding as failures second class honours law graduates. It operates in a self-centred manner and the Minister must act sooner rather than later. I have before me minutes of the Incorporated Law Society council meeting of January 1978 which indicate that it is there to perpetutate its own members and their families.

The Deputy's time is up. He will appreciate that this matter does not really arise on the Estimate.

The Minister has said he stands for law reform and surely I can respond.

You will have to develop that at a later date.

I am giving notice today that I will put pressure on the Government to change the Act because there are major scandals at present which are not being addressed.

Deputy John O'Connell has a maximum of 15 minutes.

Perhaps the Deputy might share some of his time.

I will be delighted to share my time because I will speak only for ten minutes at the most. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate our new Minister for Justice. I feel confident he will approach his new Ministry with great zeal and determination to ensure that we get plenty of reform in this area. I am not going to speak about law reform, I am going to speak about law and order which is at the heart of the matter in Dublin city.

I must admit, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that there is great fear in our city at present. A considerable number of break-ins, robberies and assaults occur and now even tourists are being subjected to this vandalism. I had some American tourists here a week ago and just ten minutes later in a restaurant in town they had passports, travellers cheques and everything taken from them. It is a bad reflection on our people and our city that this can happen. We find that the habitual criminal element is still very much involved in this work. It is the same criminal element that is involved throughout our city. I feel that our justices should be a little more severe on some of them because as long as we give them the impression that we will treat them with kid gloves this is what will continue to happen in our cities. I was one of the great liberals who believed we should consider that they all came from deprived homes and should be given every advantage but, of course, they have taken over in our city. There is very little hope for the people unless we let them know that this criminal element will not prosper.

Where a criminal has been convicted and where after incarceration for a certain time he shows progress, good conduct and has a genuine intention not to pursue a life of crime, we should be prepared to offer him a helping hand. I hope the Minister would have the good sense to offer him a chance, especially where there would be an opportunity of work. He might be offered a day release, a weekend release and then perhaps a regular release. I feel this is what we must try to do for these people. It is very important especially for those who realise, even after a short time, the futility of their cause and who are prepared to lead a normal life and conform to normal behaviour that we are prepared to offer them a helping hand.

I am very impressed by the figures I have seen in relation to the community service Act. While there are 4,000 orders, I would like to know what kind of work is being undertaken by them. Certainly, I have seen no evidence in areas which I represent of community service orders being implemented. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on it or at some other time offer us an opportunity to see the work being done, how effective it is, how these people respond and if the community itself is responding. I must confess I have no first-hand evidence of the work or the results. Almost £250,000 is provided in the Estimate for this work. The idea behind it is wonderful but I would like to know exactly how it is succeeding in practice.

I am also much impressed by the community policing. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if it is his intention to extend this policing. It is being carried out on the northside and in areas such as Tallaght and some of the southern suburbs. I would like to know exactly how he intends to extend it. I believe one of the answers to our crime problem is that the Garda become more involved with the community and become part of that community. In this way they will have greater control over crime in the area.

Another sector we should look at is the courts. The courts are cumbersome bodies. Garda witnesses pose serious problems for the force because the gardaí are away from the barracks and are involved in the court work, having to wait in the District Courts for many hours. As a result this poses serious problems for policing in areas because the Garda are not there. While we are told that a Garda barracks has a sufficient number of gardaí — in theory it has — many are involved in court work, in having to appear as witnesses. The situation is not the same on the ground as it is in theory. Perhaps the Minister could have a look at this area to see if written evidence from the garda might be accepted by the courts instead of his attendance being required. In this way we would allow the Garda to carry out their normal work which is the work of policing in the community. Their involvement in court work imposes serious strains on the Garda and this is an area we must look at very seriously and very quickly.

I had occasion a few years ago to visit Mountjoy Prison. It was a revelation. As Members of this House we should be given the opportunity — and perhaps the Minister might look favourably on this suggestion — to visit the prison in groups to see the facilities there and even to see the over-crowding and to see what can be done about it so that the Minister's work would be made much easier in getting the necessary support for improvements in our prisons. It would be a good initiative on the part of the Minister to encourage us to visit the prisons to see what goes on. It could be done even when the Dáil is in session. We might visit it in groups and see the work that is being done. I believe good work is being done there. I know the prison staff do a very good job. However, prison is a soul-destroying place and we do not have enough workshop facilities for the prisoners. When they leave prison the followup service is not as good as is required. Unless we can get these people placed in jobs, it is as good as telling them that the only way is to carry on a life of crime and inevitably return to prison.

We have got to make a big effort to improve the lot of these people when they are discharged from prison. That is where we are not doing enough and we are not able to provide the resources for them. They are still branded when they leave prison. They are still stigmatised. It is very difficult for them to get jobs in normal times but at present because of the high unemployment level they are relegated to the lowest level. Some special effort must be made to rehabilitate them in our society. Only if we can get these people rehabilitated in society will we reduce crime in our society.

Deputy O'Connell was agreeable to sharing five minutes of his time. Deputy McGahon assumes it was he who was to share the time.

Will it be possible for me to have some time?

I think it will be possible later on to accommodate Deputy Barnes.

I wish to thank Deputy O'Connell for the opportunity he has given me to say a few words on this Estimate. I would like also to congratulate the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, on his new appointment. He lives relatively near me and I am sure he will understand if I am parochial in the very limited time I have to make my contribution.

I want to draw the Minister's attention — although I am sure he is fully aware of it — to the appalling crime that occurred around my county over the weekend in which an unfortunate man was taken from a licensed premises near where I live in County Louth and whose body was found this morning in the Border area. I ask the Minister to give priority to curtailing and restricting this most appalling gang of criminals who have besmirched Ireland's name — that is the Provisional IRA. I ask the Minister to consider proscribing the infamous organisation — an organisation that shamed Ireland's name internationally and brought my native town of Dundalk to the brink of despair because of the activities they have engaged in along the Border.

It is a weakness in a democracy that allows an organisation such as this to exist and, indeed, to allow Mr. Gerry Adams, the Irish Dr. Mengeles, the Angel of Death, to go about his gruesome activities and to seek election to the House of Parliament. The British and Irish Governments should have the courage to recognise this evil organisation for what they are and to proscribe and put them outside the bounds of acceptable practice in this country or in Britain.

I wish to draw to the Minister's attention the unacceptable number of fatal accidents in County Louth. Year after year we head the fatal statistics list. Only last Sunday afternoon a fatal crash occurred in which six people were burned to death. Sadly, this featured a North of Ireland car. In the Border areas one of our problems is the unusually high incidence of accidents — many of them fatal — involving people from the Six Counties. Last August two teenage girls, one of whom was to get married four days later, lost their lives on the Newry Road, Dundalk. The speedometer of the car involved in that accident stopped at 100 miles per hour. Yet the Director of Public Prosecutions, in his wisdom, saw fit to serve no charges on the young man driving that car. He was allowed to walk away from the accident in which two teenage girls lost their lives. I deplore that. I also deplore the ridiculous system that allows people from the North of Ireland who face serious charges where people lost their lives to get bail for the derisory sum of £50 or £100. I do not believe they should get bail; however, if they do get bail, it should be for a substantial sum. In another case a young man was deliberately mowed down by a driver who is now in Canada, but was not brought to justice. There is a loophole in the law and I ask the Minister to look at legislation in this area and to prevent such an unacceptable situation occurring again.

The IRA's activities have to be curbed if we are to have any type of society in this country. I ask the Minister to consider providing more manpower along the Border, and specifically to introduce an under cover surveillance taskforce to keep these animals at bay and to prevent any more atrocities in our part of the country.

Another area which the Minister should examine is the tighter control of under-age drinking. Statistics show that young people are starting to drink as young as 12½ years. This is totally unacceptable. Many of these young people are lulled into drinking by the glamorous and seductive TV advertising which are beamed directly into their homes every ten minutes. These advertisements should be curbed because in many cases they are more harmful to families than cigarette advertisements. I believe that the price of drinking in social terms is very high and constitutes a greater danger to society than smoking.

Unfortunately my time is very limited and I see the Leas-Cheann Comhairle appealing to me to finish. Therefore, I will end on that note.

I thank the Deputy for responding to the appeal, I now call on Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan who will make his maiden speech. I am sorry to tell the Deputy he has a maximum of five minutes because we must accommodate other Deputies.

I congratulate the Minister and wish him well in his term of office. He has a very difficult brief and I look forward to seeing him introduce legislation which I hope will not only improve the community at large but the whole nation.

I will deal with one aspect that was raised in the Minister's speech — the community policing programme. The Minister indicated that the community policing has worked very well in the Dublin area. I am sure it is working very well there and in other areas but there is a desperate shortage of resources for this type of policing activity, which I believe is of immense importance to the community.

As a nation, we seem to rely on voluntary efforts at all times and while this is good and indicates that the community are interested in the well being of each and every member of society, we can go too far. We must provide resources for the community policing programme. Unfortunately, the Minister has not said what he intends doing, but I hope that in the coming months he will spell out very clearly the resources he will put into this programme. This is an area where we can get to grips with crime and where vandalism can be stamped out.

I would also like to comment on the courts. The Minister said he wishes to centralise the courts. The last Government had a fairly good record in decentralisation and I would not like to see centralisation of our court procedures. It is important that each district has its own courts. It is very important also that the courthouse property should be the responsibility of the Minister, and not the responsibility of the local authorities, who are at present so hard pressed for money that they cannot maintain these courthouses throughout the country. The Minister should take the responsibility of maintaining courthouses away from local authorities who should never have been responsible for them in the first place.

The last point I wish to make relates to the area of wandering animals. The Minister for the Environment indicated to me already that this matter is not his responsibility. Therefore, it must be that of the Department of Justice. I ask this Minister, in his term of office, to consider very closely the menace of wandering animals on our roads and the indiscriminate parking of wagons and trailers with seemingly no restriction on them. I ask the Minister to consider modernising and updating the legislation which deals with this type of menace.

I thank everybody who has co-operated so well in this short debate. I would like to join in congratulating the Minister for Justice and for Communications. I know that even on this first occasion in this ministry, from the response to this short debate he will realise how much work he has taken on. I venture to say that because of the way in which we deal with law reform in this House not alone should there be a Department of Justice but there should also be a department for law reform. The demands on the Department of Justice regarding security and so on are almost in conflict with, and sometimes take priority over, law reform which is of the utmost importance and urgency.

I wish to ask the Minister a few quick questions. We all welcome the recruitment of 1,000 garda trainees over the three year period 1989-91 and the training they will get which will prepare them for the difficulties of our violent society. In his speech the Minister said that 340 garda trainees will be recruited during this year and that 87 successful candidates have commenced training already. Has the Minister any idea how many female and male trainees have been recruited? There is a huge imbalance with regard to the recruitment of male and female gardaí. The Joint Committee on Women's Rights, and indeed I personally pointed out to the former Minister that he should take the opportunity, without interfering with any interview process or anything else, of ensuring — indeed a section in the Employment Equality Act allows — that positive action be taken to correct that imbalance by recruiting a higher number of women. I wonder if the Minister has any figures regarding the first phase of recruitment or how positive it has been regarding women.

I also note from the Minister's speech that this year's Estimate will enable 210 additional prison places to be brought into use, 160 of them at Wheatfield. Can the Minister give us a breakdown of the prisoners: are they juveniles or are there special facilities there for women? As we know, the facilities for women in prison at present are not alone medieval but barbarous at times. In the drafting of the Wheatfield project it was intended to provide proper facilities for women. I wonder how many places have been allocated to women in that first intake.

I welcome, as we all do, the fact that the rape Bill will be introduced as quickly as possible. I want to make a point some other Deputies have referred to. It would be impossible to bring in any kind of effective Bill to deal with rape, which would do justice to the victims of rape and sexual assault, if we do not allow for an extention of resources to the work begun in prisons by the probation and welfare officers, taking into account counselling and therapy groups. It is a matter of grave concern to women in particular, the people who are most affected by this, when a rapist having completed his statutory sentence is released without any regard for his further mental or psychological well-being or what he may do to women when he is released. Only today we heard an horrific account of such an event. There is no way we can bring in an effective rape Bill to deal with this matter unless we integrate the treatment of sex offenders while they are in prison and make a statutory demand that they continue with community treatment when on parole.

I will come back to that matter again. We have to give the most positive and urgent consideration to this matter and bring in legislation to deal with it immediately. The work that has been carried out on a voluntary basis by the probation and welfare officers has been wonderful. It has shown their commitment and also the response of sex offenders to this kind of therapy and its importance.

I was struck by the disappointment and disillusionment caused by the dismantling of, and indeed the lack of support for free civil legal aid centres, particularly when we take into consideration the desperate circumstances in which they were set up. I want to place on the record of this House the personal courage of a woman in Cork called Josie Lynch who, out of desperation, wrote to Europe who responded and embarrassed this State by demanding that we give free civil legal aid particularly to women who are financially dependent and sometimes in fear of their lives. It is a scandal and a shame that even having had to accept the demand from Europe that we give free civil legal aid, we have not provided the resources for vulnerable victims who desperately need support. I ask the Minister to consider providing resources for mediation services, free civil legal aid services and the education of people about their basic civil rights. That would go a long way towards saving money on the hospitalisation and treatment of victims of such violence and institutionalising the people who perpetrate such violence. The system is crazy, inhuman, dehumanising and, above all, is unjust. At a time when we are proud to be part of a Republic celebrating equality brought about by a revolution in France 200 years ago, we cannot afford to even raise our heads in Europe much less proclaim that we have a republican spirit and republican support for the civil rights of people, for the justice that this State must support.

First, I would like to thank all the Deputies who have contributed to this unfortunately brief debate. I share the concern of Deputy Barrett and others that in all of our contributions we were limited in the range of subjects we were able to cover because of the time available to us. I very much welcome the debate even though it was only of two hours duration. I welcome it at such an early stage in my Ministry in Justice because it has given me the opportunity to hear the concerns and views of Members of the House. I can assure them I have taken careful note of the points raised in the debate and I will act on the various suggestions as far as I possibly can and as rapidly as possible.

A number of Deputies mentioned the murder of Mr. McAnulty. I wish to express on my behalf and on behalf of the Government our revulsion at Mr. McAnulty's death. The House can be assured that the Garda will leave no stone unturned in their search for his killers. I discussed the matter with the Garda Commissioner this morning and he is as aware as I am of the urgency of the need to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice as soon as possible.

I want to touch on a number of points and Deputies will excuse me if in the limited time I am not able to get to every point but I assure them I have taken careful note of them. On Deputy Barrett's suggestion that the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism should be re-established, I will bring this to the attention of the Chief Whip and have it considered. Deputy Barrett was also concerned about the Commissioner's report on crime, 1988. I want to tell him that that report will be published in the next few days. The Deputy also mentioned the question of extradition and the report of the Oireachtas under section 6 of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. I will bring it to the Government shortly and present it to each House of the Oireachtas at the earliest available opportunity.

Most Deputies mentioned the question of the legal aid system and law centres generally. Due to the general economic difficulties since the scheme was introduced in 1980 it has not been possible to develop the level of services available under the scheme as rapidly as had been hoped for initially. This has meant that the board find it necessary from time to time to restrict the rate at which new clients can be taken on at various law centres because of pressure of the very limited staff resources. However, I am advised that the board's solicitors in law centres have always been able to see immediately all eligible applicants whose cases require urgent emergency intervention, for example, cases of marital violence. I am not saying this situation is perfect; it is anything but perfect. As I have already indicated in my brief opening remarks, the position is under active review and I intend to take whatever action is necessary to minimise the difficulties faced by the Free Legal Aid Board in the matter generally. I share the House's concern in relation to this.

Deputy Taylor mentioned the Garda Complaints Board. Four new posts have now been agreed for the board and it is hoped the staff will be assigned shortly. That should solve some of the problems outlined by the Deputy.

On Deputy McCartan's question in relation to the point I made about trying to rationalise the District Court, I share his view about the very local nature of the District Court system and that it is an essential feature of the District Court. I assure the Deputy I will take these aspects into account in the course of the review of the operation of the District Court. I am aware that in Dublin the level of courthouse accommodation has been improved substantially in recent years and that measures are in train to improve it even further, but I can tell the Deputy and other Deputies who mentioned it that in the review I will take into account the points they raised.

I will also take the Land Registry into account in the context of the urgent examination of the situation which I propose to undertake and which I mentioned in my introductory remarks.

Deputy John O'Connell mentioned the genuine need for reform, not just in the law reform area but in the law and order situation in the city. He mentioned the question of tourists. We all abhor our tourists being in any way interfered with. I am glad to be able to report to the House what many Members have already seen, that in one case which was well publicised in the last number of days, the theft of a mini-van from four UK residents, the van and most of their goods have been returned to them.

Deputy O'Connell suggested that an opportunity be given to Members of the House to inspect some of the work being done under the Community Services Order. I take the point, and I will be delighted to make the necessary arrangements to have this type of work inspected by Deputies in the period ahead. As regards the need for an offer of a helping hand on a day, weekend or work release basis, I assure the Deputy I am taking careful note of the points made.

Other very important matters were raised by Deputy Shatter, Deputy Allen, Deputy McGahon, Deputy O'Sullivan in his maiden speech, on which I compliment him, and Deputy Barnes. I have taken note of all the points raised and I will be responding to them in the course of my period in Justice. I welcome an early opportunity to hear the views of the House and the obvious deep concern of Members of the House about law reform in crime, vandalism and other areas. I appreciate it at such an early stage of my ministry. I also appreciate very much the concern expressed by Members of the House that I might be overworked having to carry the two burdens of Justice and Communications. I am delighted to be able to say to Members that they need have no fears that I might be overworked. I will be well able to look after both Departments efficiently and effectively and I assure them that Communications will get very special attention just as the Department of Justice will.

We have noted that.

(Interruptions.)

Before you put the question, Sir, will it be possible to make arrangements for special sittings of the Circuit Court to deal with appeals in relation to attacks on visitors?

I will take note of the point and have a look at it.

The question is: "That the Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Justice, Garda Síochána, Prisons, Courts, Land Registry, Registry of Deeds and Charitable Donations and Bequests for the year ending 31 December 1989 are hereby agreed."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 72.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Rúairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Ta, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share