Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 26 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 7

Estimates, 1992. - Vote 24: Charitable Donations and Bequests.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £152,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1992, for the salaries and expenses of the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office.

I propose to take all the Votes for which I am responsible together, but I shall endeavour to answer questions on any particular Vote.

The total estimate for all the Votes for which I am responsible is £474,039,000, an increase of £22,657,000 or 5 per cent above the expenditure for these Votes in 1991. Pay and allowances etc. account for 84.1 per cent of the total Estimates and show an increase of 8.8 per cent compared with 1991.

I will commence with the Garda Síochána Vote. The 1992 Estimates provision for this Vote is sufficient to ensure that the Garda Síochána have the necessary resources to preserve law and order throughout our country. To put our spending in this respect in perspective I can tell the House that the provision in this year's Estimate for the Garda Síochána of £341,260,000 represents an outlay by the State on policing this year of almost £100 for every man, woman and child in this country. There is another key statistic I would like to cite at the outset which is that we have one garda for every 323 people. This is one of the best police-population ratios in Western Europe.

My priority in the Garda area is to obtain the maximum value for the Irish people from this colossal investment in policing. I intend to maintain the present pace of recruitment, to increase civilianisation in the force and to facilitate in every way I can better law enforcement by the men and women of the Garda Síochána. Whether it be subversive, ordinary, juvenile or complex white-collar crime, I intend to ensure that the Garda have the resources necessary to deal with the challenges they must face on a daily basis.

The first batch of the current round of the 1,000 recruits to be taken on commenced training in the Garda college in Templemore in April this year. This new recruitment campaign together with the temporary extension up to the end of this year, of the retirement age from 57 to 60 will ensure that the strength of the force is kept to a maximum. Indeed its strength at the end of this year will, at almost 11,000, be close to an all-time high for the membership of the Garda Síochána.

There are about 585 civilian clerical staff employed in the Garda Síochána at present. This is the highest number ever. A further 105 civilian staff will be recruited this year and they will be assigned to posts which will result in an equivalent increase in the Garda operational strength.

The current recruitment campaign together with the policy of increased civilianisation will result in a greater physical presence of gardaí on Irish roads and streets, a result I am sure that the public will be pleased to see.

I welcome the changes which are occurring at present within the Garda Síochána to provide a more community-based policing service to the public. I am, of course, referring to such initiatives as community policing and the rural policing scheme which was introduced last September in 14 Garda districts. The overall response of the general public to these initiatives has been extraordinarily favourable. Additional clerical staff and resources have been provided to those areas involved in the rural policing scheme to ensure a greater service to the public, particularly in remote areas. Gardaí involved in the scheme now have more time at their disposal to engage in crime prevention strategies including visiting schools and the elderly living alone. This scheme is being continuously monitored by the Garda authorities who are very satisfied with its operation to date. The question of extending the scheme to other areas will be considered over the next 12 months.

In the urban setting 174 community gardaí are assigned to community policing duties in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway, and these schemes will be further extended. These gardaí provide a closer link between the force and the local residents in densely populated suburbs where the traditional Garda-community relationships of the countryside have not been the norm.

Tackling the crime problem is of course a priority issue for me. It is made all the more compelling in view of the indications that crime increased last year. While a swift and determined response to any increase in crime is necessary, care must be taken to ensure that that response is a considered and comprehensive one, particularly in view of changing crime and social patterns. One thing I am certain of — a simplistic approach to the crime situation just will not work.

As a first step, it is important to put the problem in perspective so that we can accurately assess what we are dealing with. Trends from one year to the next may not be indicative of the real crime trend over a longer period. We must also consider the impact of increasing crime levels worldwide. Indeed, while Ireland has one of the lowest crime rates per capita of the 12 EC countries, we do have particular crime problems in certain urban areas.

With regard to urban crime it is generally recognised that police response in itself is not sufficient; a more widely based community response is called for. With this in mind, a high level inter-departmental group was set up late last year comprising assistant secretaries from the Departments of Justice, Education, Environment, Health, Labour and Social Welfare and also representatives from Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and the IDA. This group commenced their work by examining the needs of young people in the Ronanstown area of County Dublin and I look forward to receiving their report at an early date. The group will continue their work by focusing attention on the needs of young people in other areas where urban crime has been a problem. I might mention that even prior to the setting up of this group a number of community-based projects involving the Garda and other statutory and non-statutory organisations have been established and are in receipt of State support. These include projects in Ronanstown, Killinarden, and Cherry Orchard in Dublin and Southhill in Limerick.

The Garda authorities cannot always spell out the details of their "behind the scenes" work. I would like to inform the House of two particular areas where such Garda work is ongoing and effective. The first relates to attacks on tourists. There is active and continuing liaison between the Garda, Bord Fáilte and other tourist interests in dealing with this problem. Measures taken include the deployment of additional Garda patrols, including gardaí on plainclothes duty, in areas of high tourist interest and the distribution of leaflets to visitors advising on the crime prevention measures they can take.

The second area is the problem of drug abuse. Unfortunately, the indications are that the incidence of drug offending in Ireland has increased. Indeed the House will be aware of many recent Garda successes in the drugs area. The media have carried accounts of several successful Garda raids in recent weeks. These operations, which followed painstaking Garda surveillance and intelligence gathering activity, are evidence that the Garda have the skills, the commitment and the resources to tackle the drugs problem.

I will support the Garda in every way possible in the fight against drugs. A Bill designed to deprive those who deal in drugs, and indeed other criminals, of the profits of their sordid business is at an advanced stage of preparation in my Department and I hope to introduce it shortly to the House.

I want to assure the House that I am commited to providing the Garda Síochána with the powers and resources neccessary to deal effectively with the crime of fraud. Following an internal review prompted by my Department, the Garda Commissioner recently increased the strength of the Fraud Squad from 38 to 45 members. The Garda authorities are fully aware that the squad can call on assistance from outside specialists, as and when they require it. Also, I have established an Advisory Group on Serious Fraud under Mr. Peter Maguire, SC. This group, who include senior representatives of the Garda authorities, the Director of Public Prosecution's office, the Attorney General's office, the Departments of Finance and Industry and Commerce, the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Bank and my Department, are to report to me by Christmas and I can assure this House that their advice will be carefully considered and acted upon by this Government.

While speaking on the Garda Estimate I feel it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to refer to the small number of gardaí, 70 in all, who are serving today with the UN peacekeeping forces in Angola, Yugoslavia and Cambodia. These men and women, who have volunteered for these peacekeeping duties, are all superb ambassadors for Ireland abroad.

Traffic law enforcement continues to be a top priority for the gardaí. The Garda Traffic Corps now has 364 members, including a Chief Superintendent. It is now proposed to assign ten civilian clerical assistants to the corps, bringing the total number of civilians to 27, thus releasing vital Garda manpower for on-the-street traffic duties.

For sometime the question of false alarm calls has attracted attention both inside and outside this House. About 235,000 alarm activations notified to the Garda Síochána annually are false while only 15,000 are genuine alarm calls. When attending to the calls the Garda have no way of knowing which are genuine and which are false. Therefore, the alarms in question, which were intended as a useful instrument of crime prevention, are now, by and large, operating in a way which hampers effective crime prevention.

I have therefore approved the introduction by the Garda Síochána of a new policy to deal with those installations which show an unacceptable pattern of false calls. Under the new policy, owners of alarmed premises, where false calls exceed certain pre-determined levels, will, after a warning and further opportunity to rectify the situation, be informed that the Garda will no longer respond to their alarm calls. Only alarms which are connected either to an autodialling device, a monitoring centre or a local Garda station will be affected by this policy. Most residential alarms are not connected in any of these ways and are not therefore affected by this policy. Questions relating to the nuisance created by false activations of residential alarms are matters for the Minister for the Environment.

The policy will come into operation as from 1 September this year thus giving each owner of an alarmed premises adequate time to take remedial action where there is a high level of false alarms. This policy will succeed in making alarm systems once again an effective instrument in crime prevention.

Before commenting on the details contained in the Estimate for the prisons for 1992, I should like to comment on more general topics.

The unfortunate death of a young man in Wheatfield Prison last week has again provoked criticism of the prison system in general and of my stated intention of carrying out a full scale review to see whether changes in approach may be indicated.

The first point to be made about the recent unfortunate death is that it occurred in the most modern institution in the State, an institution which contains services and facilities of the highest standard. The deceased was serving a sentence. It is hardly relevant to that death to assert that other prisons are outworn and contain inadequate facilities, including primitive sanitation, or that there may be a need for a specialist institution for remand prisoners.

I do not need to be reminded of the many deficiencies in our prison system. I have visited some prisons and have seen for myself the good and the not so good. Of one thing I am convinced, and that is the need for a thorough review of where we are going. In an address to the annual delegate conference of the Prison Officers' Association at the end of April last I emphasised that I was not going to tinker with individual problems in a vacuum. I said we needed a better sense of purpose and direction in the prisons so that we may get better results from all our efforts. I said then, that I was planning the groundwork for a document that would set out an overall aim and objectives for the prison system, a set of priorities and a strategy to achieve them. Our thinking was going to be informed by the principles of penal policy enunciated by international bodies of which we are members and by the thrust of the Whitaker report. Once we got the fundamental aproach right, and anchored it to a realistic strategy, we could go on to tackle succesfully other features of the prison system that needed up-dating. The process I announced at the end of April is in full swing. An initial draft has been prepared and this will now be the subject of consultation among interested groups within the prison system. I have always been prepared to acknowledge that there are many features in the prison system that are far from satisfactory and I am determined to find a coherent strategy to deal with them over a period of time, and as resources allow.

I now want to turn to the Estimates. The total net estimate for the Prisons Vote exceeds the corresponding figure for 1991 by £3.060 million, an increase of 4 per cent. The main variations are: the provision being made for pay and overtime is £57.589 million compared with an outturn in 1991 of £57.358 million. The increase mainly reflects the full year cost of 169 additional staff which were recruited on a phased basis last year and the total provision for the Probation and Welfare Service, including the community service orders scheme, is £8.625 million compared with £7.25 million in 1991. The increase is mainly as a result of an increase in staff costs.

Nearly £10 million has been allocated this year to provide for the modernisation, up-grading and maintenance of our existing prison buildings — £6.5 million for expenditure on capital works and £3.49 million for the maintenance of existing buildings and equipment. The main capital allocation is for completion of the new health care unit in Mountjoy Prison, for refurbishment, to include in-cell sanitation, of the existing women's prison, which is due for completion shortly, commencement of construction of a new kitchen in Mountjoy Prison and the up-grading of security, services and other facilities in a number of prisons including Portlaoise.

Funds for the implementation of proposals for improvements sought by the director of prison medical services have been included in the Estimate. Sanction has been obtained for the appointment of a pharmacist and proposals are also being formulated for revised contracts for prison medical officers. The number of clinical psychologists is to be increased from three to six immediately, and possibly to eight later, to facilitate improved levels of counselling to prisoners.

The Estimates will encourage the use of alternatives to custody to the maximum. We already have at any one time about 3,200 offenders on supervision in the community as an alternative to a custodial sentence, including about 750 on community service orders. Community-based sanctions of this kind have many attractions. They are an effective penalty, they achieve positive results for the community and, of course, they avoid the huge costs of imprisonment. I have a review already in progress which is focusing on the possibility of extending them to fine defaulters.

A great deal of good work is being done to improve the prisons. Those working within the system — Governors, staff, specialists — are providing an invaluable service to the community and I acknowledge that fact. My main concern is to maximise the benefits for the community by having a system which not only protects the public from the depredations of the more serious offenders but also uses the system in a positive way to help as many prisoners as possible to resume a constructive life in the community on release. I am satisfied that if an approach aimed at maximising the benefits for the community is adopted we will be on the right road and, as I indicated earlier, the process to clarify that approach is well under way.

I move now to the courts Vote. The general efficiency and operation of the courts is, of course, a matter of great importance and the Vote provides the funding necessary to equip the courts to function as effectively as possible.

The courts Vote covers usual costs such as salaries, office equipment, accommodation and telecommunications. The estimated net cost of the courts system in 1992 taking into account the gross current expenditure and revenue accruing to the State through fines and so on is approximately £13.5 million.

The computerisation of court office work is vital if the courts are to provide an efficient and effective service. In the past few years considerable progress has been made in the computerisation of the District, Circuit and High Courts and the expansion of computerisation in the courts is to continue in 1992.

Among the measures already taken are: the computerisation of the central office of the High Court; the introduction of a case tracking system for Circuit Court offices, which has been installed in three offices to date and is under evaluation in other offices; a family law accounts package which has been made available to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court Family Law office.

In addition, an automatic office system to provide post-court documents such as fines and warrants is being introduced in the Naas, Nenagh, Portlaoise, Tullamore and Waterford District Court offices.

Computerisation of the District Court is to continue, and two independent systems have recently been assessed in this regard. In line with the computerisation of all court offices, personal computers are being provided to a range of court offices.

The accessibility of the courts to the public is extremely important and the introduction of the small claims procedure in December 1991 was a vital step in furthering this accessibility.

The small claims procedure is designed to provide a speedy, informal and low cost system to handle consumer claims. It was introduced on a pilot basis in four locations last December and has been most successful to date. The operation of the small claims procedure is being closely monitored by my Department pending a full review later this year. At that stage a decision on whether to extend the procedure to all District Court offices will be taken.

In a major initiative the provision of a live video-link system in court rooms, is now under way. The Criminal Evidence Bill, 1992, Part III, requires the provision in certain cases of an audio visual system, to enable witnesses under 17 years to give evidence and be cross-examined outside of the court-room setting. The closed circuit television system being introduced on a pilot basis in the Four Courts, and later in two provincial courts, will provide an audio visual link between the court room and a separate witness room to allow court proceedings to be conducted as if a witness were giving evidence in the court room.

I will now turn to Vote 23, for the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds. A sum of £11.305 million provided in the Vote represents an 11 per cent increase on the 1991 figure.

The additional funds provided in the Vote are earmarked primarily for implementation of an approved programme of computerisation and for the recruitment of extra staff for arrears clearance at the registries.

The House will be aware of the proposal, approved in principle by Government, to reconstitute the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds as a semi-State body. This is being done to give the registries the commercial orientation and flexibility that will enable them to provide a fast, efficient and modern service to the public and to adapt to the changing demands of this technological age.

I expect to be in a position to announce the appointment of an interim board for the registries in the near future. The interim board will operate on a non-statutory basis and their principal role will be to advise and assist in the various steps which need to be taken in readiness for the reconstitution of the registries. I have, in the meanwhile, made arrangements for the preparation of legislation to formally vest the registries in a semi-State board.

In order to offset the additional expenditure at the registries, I brought the Land Registration (Fees) Order, 1991, and the Registry of Deeds (Fees) Order, 1991, into effect on 1 April this year. The orders provide for an overall increase in fees payable to the registries of 25 per cent approximately. It is estimated that the increased fees provided for in these two orders will realise extra receipts in the amount of £1.725 million in 1992 and £2.588 million in a full year.

I am particularly pleased to be able to report that services are already improving at the registries. For example in the case of dealings, which are the main business of the Land Registry, I am informed by the registrar that the arrears of uncompleted dealings have been reduced by 7 per cent over the past two years and that a further improvement of the situation with regard to arrears and delays at the registries can be expected during the course of this year.

Finally, I will turn to the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Justice which, in addition to providing for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister, provides for certain other services including Legal Aid and the Garda Complaints Board.

The Estimate is for £18.871 million representing an increase of 10 per cent on the equivalent figure for 1991.

The 1992 Exchequer provision in respect of the Scheme of Civil Legal Aid and Advice is £2.569 million. That represents an increase of 9 per cent over the grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board in 1991. The number of staff employed by the board reached its highest level ever during 1991. Additional solicitors and administrative staff were recruited to fill vacancies and also to permit the opening of new law centres. In December last three new law centres were opened, in Castlebar, Dundalk and Letterkenny. Acquisition of premises for the two new law centres at Finglas and Clondalkin to replace the Aston House centre are almost completed and the additional staff for the centres have been recruited.

Recently a new part-time law centre opened in Newbridge and the new law centres in the Dublin area will service part-time centres to be established at Blanchardstown and Balbriggan. The board are currently examining the position of the part-time law centres with a view to opening further new ones.

The total cost of running the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme in 1992 is estimated to be £3.87 million including value-added tax and retention tax, which are recouped to the Exchequer. The scheme is administered by the courts under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, and orders made under that Act. Representation is provided by solicitors and counsel who have indicated their willingness to provide legal representation to persons who are granted free legal aid by the courts.

Members will be aware of the difficulties for the administration of justice in Cork which commenced in September 1991 as a result of the actions of the solicitors in Cork city who withdrew from the operation of the scheme because of their dissatisfaction with the level of fees paid. This action was taken some months before a claim on behalf of criminal legal aid solicitors was lodged with my Department by the Incorporated Law Society. The solicitors in Cork have resumed legal aid work since 25 May pending the outcome of the negotiations with the Incorporated Law Society in which my Department are engaged.

Provision of £346,000 is included in the Vote of the Office of the Minister for Justice for the Garda Complaints Board and this represents an increase of £26,000 over last year's provision. This increase covers staff increments as well as an expected increase in tribunal and appeal board activity arising from the clearing of the backlog of complaints. The assignment last year of three additional staff to the board has already enabled the board to make very significant inroads into the arrears situation which had developed. The board are satisfied that they now have the necessary staff to deal with all complaints within a speedy and acceptable time-scale.

The assignment of the additional staff has also enabled the board to examine the operation of the complaints system with a view to streamlining it where appropriate. One such aspect is the "clogging up" of the system with formal investigations in the case of the complaints of a minor nature. Discussions between the board and Garda management on this matter have been successfully concluded and revised procedures for informal resolution of complaints were introduced at the beginning of this year. These new arrangements are designed to ensure that less serious complaints are dealt with in a simpler way, as originally envisaged in the Complaints Act.

In the course of this address I have informed the House where State resources within my control have been allocated. I hope I have made it clear that my first priority in the use of these resources is to preserve law and order throughout the country and to protect our citizens as they go about their daily business.

With every confidence I commend these Estimates to the House.

This is the first occasion the Minister has brought a full Estimate for the Department of Justice before the House. I have a certain difficulty in dealing with it because the traditional politics that we on this side are supposed to engage in dictate that I stand up and launch an attack on the Minister and draw attention to his political deficiencies or the deficiences of his Department. However, a great deal of what the Minister says and has been saying for some time about crime and the problems in our prisons makes sense. One of the difficulties we have is that we constantly confuse talk with action. The recognition that problems exist and the pious aspiration to tackle them are not producing the necessary action. No doubt the Minister can say in response that he is in this office for only a few months, but a great deal of what he has had to say today mirrors what his predecessor said in previous Estimate debates and no doubt his predecessor when newly appointed to that office would have given the excuse that it was his predecessor who did not do the job properly.

First I wish to deal with the area of crime. There has been a drastic increase in crime in urban areas. Crime increased by 8 per cent in 1990, and I am reliably informed that it increased a further 8 per cent in 1991; although the figures have not yet been officially published they are being leaked all over the place. I understand that crime is on the increase this year. That level of increase is crime is not acceptable. In some areas of our cities, elderly people do not feel safe in their houses; others fear that if they leave their own home they will be intimidated by people on the streets and there are incidents taking place that are entirely unacceptable in a civilised society.

I very much agree with the introduction of community policing. I was pressing for this for a number of years and I would like to see a dramatic expansion of it. In fairness, the Minister acknowledges the benefits of community policing and its success within the areas where it was tried. He says he would like to see it expanded within the next 12 months but what we need is an immediate expansion so that we can ensure that the Garda we have perform the functions that are necessary to protect the community. Community policing performs two functions; first, it enables the local Garda to develop a relationship with the local community and this can have a preventive effect in that those doing community policing have an admirable record of involvement in their local community outside their official working hours. Second, this acts as a deterrent to those elements within communities who are intent on creating trouble. Let me stress that it is not enough to recognise that we have a problem and simply say that we will review community policing within the next 12 months to deal with the increase in urban crime. People want to see more gardaí on the streets this summer.

I welcome the move to civilianisation, although I know there is some concern about it within the Garda. There are certain types of clerical jobs which might be more appropriate to gardaí than to civilians but there are other jobs whose confinement to members of the Garda is a source of amazement to me. I have no doubt that the increased employment of civilians to deal with basic clerical work will release more guards to engage in community policing.

A recent communication from the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors draws attention to the fact that the temporary arrangement which allows gardaí to defer retirement up to the age of 60 is to terminate at the end of this year. At a time when there is an increase in crime there is a very strong argument to retain within the Garda men in the 56 to 60 age group whose experience is invaluable to the force. The facility to remain within the force up to the age of 60 should be continued beyond the end of this year.

We also need to ensure that we have a continuous stream of young people joining the force. The failure to recruit sufficient numbers and the misrepresentation with regard to recruitment campaigns made by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers has resulted in a changing age profile within the Garda. It is important that there are a reasonable number of young members of the force who will be able to relate to young people in areas where intensive community policing should be the objective. There is as usual a disagreement with regard to figures. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors point out that if the retirement age of 57 is reimposed after 1992, numbers within the force will be substantially reduced within a couple of years. If this question is not addressed, there will be a reduction in the Garda to the extent that by 1995 there will be only 10,400 gardaí, an effective decline of 1,000 since 1985. That is a matter of serious concern and I hope the Minister will respond in a constructive way.

The other difficulty in the fight against crime is what is known as the revolving door syndrome. Crimes are committed, the gardaí investigate, people are properly brought before the courts and convicted. Overcrowding within the prisons has resulted in a number of offenders not fully serving their sentences. I am not talking about people who are judged to benefit from a formal early release scheme. I agree with such schemes, but the reality is that a significant number of people are released early, without intensive supervision by the probation service, in order to make space for the next batch of prisoners. This syndrome is undermining the morale of gardaí. I have had reports of instances of burglary in the city and county where gardaí have suggested to the victims that there is little point in pursuing the issue because anyone brought to court will be back on the streets within a few days. Not only is this undermining the morale of the Garda but it is creating the perception within a hard core group of criminals that they are in effect immune and that if they are caught in pursuit of criminal activities nothing of any great consequence will happen. We must remove ourselves from the revolving door syndrome.

One solution is the greater use of the community service order scheme. Some people are sentenced to prison who could pay their debt to society by engaging in community service. This costs the State a great deal less than the £660 per week required to maintain someone in prison. It would ensure that spaces were available within our archaic prison service for those people who should be required to serve their full sentences. I am proud to say that it was at my initiative that the first legislation to provide for community service orders came before this House in 1982. There was some criticism that it was a "namby pamby" way of dealing with people. The Private Members' Bill which I produced, and the consequent change in Government policy have been proven to be right. Community service, as the Minister rightly says, is a success and its use should be extended. In some instances it allows schemes to be implemented in local communities which would not otherwise be financed. There is a cost saving in extending this scheme in that it costs less to have somebody supervised than to keep that person in prison for a week or two. It would ensure that prison facilities would be available for those who should serve sentences.

I share the Minister's view, and that of his predecessor, that problems with regard to crime cannot simply be dealt with by policing, prisons and community service orders. The problems are deeper than that and require a mixture of remedies. I am extremely disappointed that the ministerial committee appointed to look at the broad range of community initiatives in areas with crime problems has still not reported, even on the Ronanstown area. I do not understand the delay. The committee was established by the Minister's predecessor and nothing is happening. There is no point in successive Ministers recognising the problems and speaking in platitudes. If this committee cannot produce a report within the next couple of weeks the Minister should sack it and make the necessary political decisions. The political buck rests with the Minister and he cannot keep passing the baton to various committees. We recognise that a variety of initiatives are required. Political decisions must be taken.

The same applies to the prison service. I will not dwell on conditions within that service. The Minister acknowledges that he is familiar with them. It is a scandal that every couple of weeks I table Special Notice Questions, which are frequently ruled out of order by the Chair on the basis that they are not urgent, because yet another person has committed suicide within our prisons. I have lost count of the number of Special Notice Questions I have tabled to this Minister and his predecessor following the report of another suicide. I am told by the Chair that it is not an urgent matter. Presumably it is not urgent because the person is dead and nobody can do anything about that. This is urgent because one suicide in our prison per year is one too many; two is far too many, more than two is a national scandal and we have gone well beyond that figure this year. If we have yet another suicide it exhibits the inadequacies within our prison service in addressing the problem of individuals who cannot cope and find a way out by taking their own lives. We are not identifying the people who are at risk of taking their own lives.

If we read of this number of suicides in the prisons of South Africa, we would have a plethora of questions, probably some tabled by Government back-benchers, suggesting that the South African Government should be condemned because of this. If we read of this number of suicides in prisons in other identifiable countries, what would be the reaction in this House? There is a complacent reaction about it along the lines, "yes, they are in prison, they are probably of no use and it is probably as well that some of them committed suicide, they are irrelevant people, they are statistics". They are not, they are individuals and it is not acceptable in a democracy in Western Europe that this number of people commit suicide. The Minister made the point that the suicide that occurred this week — yet another tragic event — in Wheatfield Prison could not have been due to the conditions of the prison because it is a great deal more modern than, say, Mountjoy Prison.

I have no doubt the conditions in prisons may be one of the elements that contribute to suicides in our prisons but I do not think they are the main reasons; they relate to the personal difficulties of the individual concerned. Mere confinement may create problems for someone who has a psychiatric problem. We do not have the sophisticated psychiatric service within our prisons that is required to identify those people who are at risk of taking their lives. I welcome the fact that the Minister has told us there will be an additional number of clinical psychologists but there is something lacking in the identification process and in the sophistication of the system. How many more suicides will we have this year while yet anoher ministerial committee consider what we will do to address the problems of having a coherent policy for our prisoners? This is not good enough.

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy merely to advise him that some three minutes now remain of the time allotted to him.

I will deal with another issue. I will not address the issue of legal aid because it will be dealt with adequately by my collegue, Deputy Cotter. I wish to deal with the issue of marriage breakdown and divorce to which the Minister made no reference. We have yet another committee — I am not sure whether it is a ministerial committee or a committee of departmental officials — preparing a White Paper on marriage breakdown. Many of us on this side of the House are familiar with the cynical political games played with the casualties of marriage breakdown by the Fianna Fáil Party in 1986. There were press reports of the imminent publication of the White Paper — one of the longest political stories in town — but I do not know what has happened to it.

I am thoroughly convinced of a number of things. First, that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are now playing a cynical political game with the casualties of broken marriages. This White Paper, when published, will be a snow job, it will be designed to make a pretence at a concern about people that the Fianna Fáil Party not only abandoned but used as a political plaything in 1986. I predict there will be no divorce referendum during the lifetime of this Government. It is an outrage that the Government have taken so long to produce this White Paper. The issues that have to be addressed are not complex, as the Minister pretends, as many of them were addressed in the report of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown in 1985, a committee on which the Minister and I sat and were regular protagonists.

Much of what needed to be done, whether we have a divorce law or a modern separation law, was done in the Judicial Separation Act, 1989, which I introduced in this House as a Private Members' Bill. A number of issues need to be addressed in the context of a divorce referendum. One is in the pension and succession area to ensure that the spouses in a broken marriage, where a divorce takes place, have their pension and succession rights protected. Indeed, the succession issue is largely addressed in the Judicial Separation Act, 1989. The remainder is a matter of political decision-making. Should there be a referendum? What proposal should be put to the people? Will it be backed by the Government? Do the Government or the Minister acknowledge that there is now a need for divorce to allow the casualties of broken marriages to remarry? Should we have family courts? Of course, we should have family courts. This is something the Minister talked about on the Joint Committee. We agreed on the need for family courts but the Government will not provide the resources to introduce them. We have a mediation service but it is still in the guise of the pilot service commenced by my constituency colleague, Deputy Fennell, in 1985 and has not expanded since outside Dublin.

A mediation service allows couples, whose marriage have collapsed, to separate in a civilised way. The current mediation service requires more staff and we need to extend it outside Dublin. Ireland is not centred in Dublin. There are other parts of the country as the Minister is well aware. Even if the Minister would open a mediation service in Castlebar I would give him two cheers for it, it might help his constituents. No doubt I would criticise him for confining it to Castlebar but at least we would have another mediation service other than the one in Dublin provided by the State.

Will the Minister tell us, in his reply, when this report will be produced. I challenge him to deny my assertion that there will be no divorce referendum during the lifetime of this Government. I hope he proves me wrong and if so it will be a welcome initiative. I suspect he will not prove me wrong. Legislation to give all spouses a joint interest in the matrimonial home has been promised for four years but it has still not been produced. It is not complex, and if the Government do not produce it, I will do so in yet another Private Members' Bill.

The Deputy will not have to

I join with Deputy Shatter in wishing the Minister well in his first presentation of Estimates in his capacity as Minister for Justice. I assure him of the support of this side of the House provided he makes the necessary efforts to bring about a system of justice in Ireland which at this time is lacking in many respects. The Minister knows that. He learned much from his appearance on the "Late Late Show". He is a changed man since but we are waiting to see the results.

The Minister said the Garda Síochána have the necessary resources to preserve law and order throughout the country. The fact is that law and order is not preserved, far from it. The Minister concedes there are difficulties in the urban crime scene in some places. That is a gross understatement of the position. Law and order in many parts of Dublin, and in the major urban areas, has broken down and people are living in fear. Gangs are roaming the streets terrifying people, stoning them and causing damage to houses. Vandalism is rampant and people are living in fear in their own homes. It is no good saying so much money is being provided in the Estimates or the number of gardaí. The Minister's system is not working. In any urban Dublin concentration, particularly in local authority housing estates, inquiries or an opinion poll as to the major concern of people will show that it is stolen cars being driven up and down the roads, across open spaces, terrifying people and causing mayhem; the burning of cars and houses and the terrifying of people in their homes. That is the order of the day in all too many of the local authority estates in urban areas, particularly in Dublin. A softly, softly, calm approach towards such crimes is just not good enough. That is the prime cause of concern to people, who are entitled to live their lives peacefully and quietly as citizens in their homes. People are being denied that right.

It is the Minister's responsibility to ensure that major-crisis steps are taken on that issue. When the Minister was on the "Late Late Show" he heard people describing the scene; he knows what is going on. However, the Minister's speech showed no evidence of any radical proposal designed to take the issue by the scruff of the neck and deal with it. That is just unacceptable. We are told that there are not sufficient custodial places for the young people who comprise the gangs that steal cars and are such a danger to life and limb — their own life and limb included, let it be said. Many of those youths come to grief, but so do innocent people. Where in the Minister's speech was there any indication that he is organising the necessary facilities to cope with the problem? There appears to be none. Speed and urgency are required here, not departmental committees, inquiries or investigations resulting in indications that legislation will be introduced subsequently.

The drug scene in Ireland is absolutely horrific — there is no other way to describe it. It is true that the Garda Síochána are working very hard to combat the problem within their resources and it is true that they have had some successes here and there. But what is the end result? The availability of drugs is rampant, it is on the increase and it is to be seen in virtually every estate in the major urban areas. In that regard I am not referring to local authority estates only — I mean all estates. The reports that I get from my own constituency, which comprises a fair cross-section of the community, are that parents are terrified because of the drug dealers who are operating in their areas. The dealers come in in their big cars, do their deals and move on, causing havoc, mayhem and loss of life among young people. The position is the same in all areas. I cannot say that adequate resources are accorded our most urgent need of at least trying to contain the problem — I am not talking about resolving it. The drug problem is not being contained, it is escalating. These drug dealers are flocking into the estates and bringing in young people, and I could provide names if they were wanted. I am not launching a criticism of the Garda Síochána or the Drug Squad. They are doing their best within their resources. However, their efforts are not working and are not adequate for the task. The problem is getting worse and more and more of our young people are getting entrapped in the drug scene.

The extent of the problem horrifies me. I should like to hear at least that the Minister and the Government recognise that this is a crisis that has to be dealt with as a crisis. I should like to hear the Minister say that he has an action plan to deal with the problem. I want to hear something new, not the same old, tired statements that the Garda are doing their best and that they have had a success here and a success there. It would be hard for the Garda not to have a success here and a success there, so widespread is the dissemination of drugs in this country now. I do not have the answer. I do not have the knowledge as to the way the drugs are coming into the country or as to the distribution networks. I know that they are major and widespread. Whatever resources have to be provided to the intelligence network of the Garda Síochána to identify the main entry points and supply points must be made available. That is a matter of top priority because the drugs problem is eating into the fabric of the youth of our country. Waiting a year, or two or three years, for reports will not do. Speed is always essential when the administration of justice is at stake.

That matter brings me to the issue of civil law. Speed is essential in the administration of justice. There is truth in the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. In Ireland justice is certainly delayed for those who need it and for those who seek it. The position in the High Court is that from the time a High Court action is set down for hearing, the unfortunate person making the claim has to wait two years plus for a listing of the hearing of their claim. For example, if a working man was knocked down by a car driven by a drunken driver, was incapacitated and laid up for perhaps a year, then brought proceedings and all the paper work were gone through so that eventually the case was set down on the list, how many cases would be ahead of his one on the list? There would be thousands of cases ahead of his case. The High Court judges are valiantly working through the system but it would be more than two years before that man got justice. That is an unacceptable time. It is Dickensian, although the delays were probably not so lengthy in the last century. The lists are getting longer by the week and the term. Down through the years we have been given reports that the Department of Justice would revamp the system, speed up the procedures and bring in the parties before masters of the High Court and narrow the issues so that everything would be speeded up and settled. Where is any of that action? Nothing has happened. It was only talk.

The one thing that the Minister and his colleagues home in on is the costs of solicitors. In this regard I do have to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. The one factor of the law that the Government are hung up about and the only thing that seems to concentrate their minds is the fees charged by solicitors and the way in which those fees escalate the costs of the law. Solicitors' fees, like any other fees, have to be reasonable and modest. Solicitors' fees are in fact one of the few kinds of fees that are controlled by officials of the courts. Their fees are assessed by taxing masters. I know of no other profession to have that kind of institution examining their fees. A major cause of high legal cost is the Government charge of 21 per cent on top of everything. Barristers' fees receive very little attention. The fees of the professionals who are an essential part of any court case — doctors, specialists, engineers, actuaries and so on — receive very little attention yet they are all a very important part of the equation.

Deputy Shatter mentioned the question of legal aid. It is nothing short of a scandal that Ireland does not have a civil legal aid system. The years and the decades are rolling on but we are not bringing in that basic human right that every citizen should have the right to have access to the remedies the law provides.

Deputy Shatter referred to the Judicial Separation Act, 1989, which is magnificient legislation in every respect except one, which is that the bulk of people who need to avail of it cannot do so because they cannot afford it. There is no great merit in the Government providing fine and essential legal remedies unless, at the same time, they provide the means and accessibility to avail of those remedies. There is an old saying that justice is open to everybody, like the Ritz Hotel. The Ritz Hotel is open to everyone but you must be able to afford their prices. The same applies to justice. I know that there are law centres but if a battered wife telephones one and says that she needs a separation under the 1989 Act and asks for an appointment, she could well be told that the earliest date available was 27 February 1993. Alternatively, they could say that their lists are closed and that they are not taking any more appointments. The person might also be told to try another centre or to come back to them in three months' time but, in the meantime, the person is going through the horror of a broken marriage with all that implies for herself and her children. That is not acceptable in a modern, civilised society. The remedies are there but people are not in a position to avail of them.

I do not know what it costs to get a judicial separation in the Circuit Court or High Court, the minimum is probably £1,000. One major defect in the Act is that it requires the proceedings to be brought in the Circuit Court, involving high costs, and even higher costs in the High Court. I moved amendments at all Stages of the Bill when it was going through the House seeking to provide that jurisdiction for separation cases, where not much property was involved, should be heard in the District Court. It would not have been free but it would have very much reduced cost and accessibility of that remedy.

District Court officers are first class in helping people applying for barring orders and matters of that kind and would have given the same help if there had been jurisdiction for judicial separation cases in the District Court. However, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil were totally resistant to the idea, the Progressive Democrats were non-supportive and the only support I got was from Deputy McCartan who was then in The Workers Party. I foresaw what would happen, I knew that people would be coming to the clinics of Members asking for help under the new Act. When they come to me I ask if they can afford to pay £1,000 or £2,000 to a solicitor and barrister to be represented in the Circuit Court or High Court and, of course, I always know the answer. I tell these people to try the law centres but, as I said, they will probably be given an appointment for 1993. Is the Minister satisfied with that situation?

At the closing stages of the Bill Deputy Collins was Minister for Justice and I brought this point to his attention. He said that when the Bill was passed he would see what could be done about updating the civil legal aid system and providing money to ensure that the legislation was accessible to all people. What happened? Nothing. There has not been any change in that regard and people are being deprived of their rights.

There has been much talk about prisons, pressure on space, the revolving door syndrome and so on. I want to refer to one aspect of imprisonment. There are people in prisons — I do not know how many — not because they committed a crime but because of non-payment of a civil debt. The system still applies and in District Courts people are sent to prison on a daily basis for failing to comply with instalment orders, to pay £5 or £10 per week in relation to something they purchased. They are given a certain time to comply with an order to pay but when they do not do so they are sent to prison. I know such orders are supposed to be made only in cases where people have the resources to pay but, in most cases in my experience, people do not know the rules and those who do not have any money find themselves in prison for failing to pay debts — usually to hire purchase companies — because they do not have the money.

It is time that the notion of putting people in prison for non-payment of a civil debt came to an end because it is no longer appropriate. Hire purchase companies and others who avail of these remedies should find some other method of recovering their money apart from putting people in prison. It is an anachronism, it is out of date, it smacks of the 18th and 19th centuries and should be got rid of. It should be taken off the Statute Book.

I also want to refer to the question of fines. The idea of imposing fines on people for driving without insurance, drunken driving and so on is an acceptable part of the system. However, the range of fines for any one offence is very wide and at the discretion of district justices, who vary greatly in the fines they impose. Seminars should be held for district justices — and possibly Circuit Court judges — at which some scheme of uniformity should be agreed. Unfortunately, some judges tend to impose a fine of £250 for driving without insurance without inquiring into the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed. A fine of £250 for driving without insurance means very little to some people but for others the judge might as well have imposed a term of three months' imprisonment because he will not be able to pay the fine. Judges should be encouraged to operate a basic means test on the person on whom they are imposing the fine instead of operating a block system of imposing the same fine for every offence, irrespective of the means of the person involved.

Let me commence where Deputy Taylor concluded as that was one of the points I wanted to mention. I believe the Minister should inquire into the possibility of having a welfare officer or an officer of his Department in the courts to assess the means of some of the people who are fined, for example, for not having insurance etc. Some time ago I was visited by an elderly gentleman with a severe heart condition who is a non-participating director in a private bus company run by his son. This unfortunate man was fined either £250 or £400 but he did not have the money to pay the fine as his only source of income is a non-contributory pension. He informed me that all he had was £50 and that he had handed this to the courts but they sent him back the cheque. He also informed me — he is such a gentle person — that if they came to take him to Mountjoy Prison that he would go quietly and would not resist; he was quite serious about this. I knew immediately that if this man was taken to prison he would not come out alive, that he would die of a broken heart, given his medical condition. I got in touch with the Minister immediately and he responded that if this gentleman sent on the £50 this would be acceptable.

The point I am trying to make is that this man had to go through a lot before he reached this stage. That is why it is important to find some way of assessing the means of people like him. It was not the intention of the Department of Justice or the courts that this man should end up in prison, but that is the law. Let me therefore give an example to show the way in which I believe it should operate because to me the law is about justice.

In the United States a little old lady was brought before Judge Abraham Lincoln Marovitz of the federal court — both Deputy Taylor and I know of him — having failed to meet the cost of a contract worth $20,000 in connection with some work on her house. She was asked by the judge if she had engaged the contractor to carry out the work and she replied that she had. When he asked her did she know that she would not have enough money to pay for the contract at the time she signed it she replied that she did. He then asked her what was the reason she signed the contract to have this work carried out and she replied that the man had persuaded her that she could afford to have the work done and that he had talked her into it.

She informed the judge that her income was around $500 per week and when he asked her if she could afford to pay the man $10 a week she replied that she could. He then made an order under which she will pay the man $10 a week, even though she was nearly 80 years of age, until the sum of $20,000 is paid off. He then turned to the young man involved and said to him that if his mother ever appeared before him in court in a similar case she would be treated in the same way. To me that is what justice is all about.

I would like to see more people go to the aid of the Garda Síochána. On Tuesday night last on my way home from this House I came across a couple of gardaí, as I turned off the main road at Lucan, who were struggling with a couple of youths. At the same time a gang of five or six youths were hurling rocks at them. Given my suicidal nature I got out of my car and went to render assistance, if I could. Other people who had been watching from their cars instinctively got out and also went to assist them. When this happened the five or six youths who were throwing rocks ran away calling us names. I asked one of the gardaí if I could help in any way and he asked me to hand him his radio so that he could call for help. Within a few minutes help arrived.

The point I am trying to make is that if people come across gardaí in such circumstances they should go to their assistance. This would be appreciated and would be of help in building a greater bond between the people and the gardaí who take terrible risks. One of the gardaí involved must have been about six foot three inches or six foot four inches but he was panting and at the end of his tether.

The youths involved has been throwing rocks at cars travelling on the Lucan by-pass and they could have killed someone given the speed at which traffic moves along that by-pass. If one of those rocks had smashed a windscreen someone could have been killed. I therefore wish to compliment these gardaí for the courage that they showed and continue to show against all the odds. As I said, I ask people to lend assistance; they may not even get involved in a struggle, because if they do these gangs of youths will soon disappear.

It should be said that if the young person the gardaí were trying to detain got into the car when they asked him to there would have been no trouble. As I support the concept of community service where people are asked to paint buildings and so on, I would send him to the bogs of Ireland to cut turf for six months. That is good healthy work. We should find a few ex-sergeant majors to supervise these youths and they should be given good plain food, allowed to watch no television and play no snooker. This would do them the world of good and would lead to the cost of administering justice being reduced dramatically.

We would also get cheaper turf.

I wish to echo the sentiments expressed by Deputies Shatter and Taylor. The people I speak of are bullies and like all bullies they are cowards at heart. Indeed, some of them have never worked and never will. That would be the best deterrent and it would not amount to cruelty. Other people have spent their whole lives digging turf in the bogs for a livelihood and it is hard work but it would not be in contravention of the Convention on Human Rights. These young able-bodied men have plenty of time on their hands, spend their money, wherever they get it from, on drink and then look for excitement after leaving a disco. That is exactly what this crowd of rotters did.

I am concerned that psychiatrically disturbed children are maintained in Trinity House. There are two or three children who should not be there; rather they should be maintained in a mental institution where they can be properly cared for. At present they are disrupting the work of the teachers at Trinity House who are doing their best. The Minister should consider this suggestion as a matter of urgency.

The Select Committee on Crime, of which I am a member, made a recommendation which was leaked to the press, that the age of criminal responsibility should be increased to 12. I would disagree with this recommendation because many of these thugs are as young as ten or 11 and are street-wise. If we go ahead with this recommendation we shall hold their parents responsible for their actions. I think the gardaí would also be totally against this proposal. They should be treated as young criminals and the courts should be allowed to decide what measures are required.

It should be remembered that many of these young people throw live rats into cars as they travel along Sheriff Street and Gardiner Street — I always advise people not to drive along those roads — in order to get the people out of the cars so that they can steal them. We have to be very careful on this matter.

I wish to refer to the need to have an inspector in court to present summonses on behalf of gardaí — I have been speaking to the Minister about this matter and I hope he will take action — in an effort to get the gardaí back on the street and to reduce the overtime bill having regard to the fact that gardaí on their day off have to attend the court to commence proceedings against some of these young hooligans. I understand that this system under which an inspector processes a stream of prosecutions is in operation in Britain and is working very successfully.

I would also ask the Minister to consider increasing the retirement age from 57 to 60. I am 58 years old and feel fit and well. I would hate to think I was on the shelf at this stage.

While it is gratifying to read in the Minister's introductory remarks that Ireland, per capita, has one of the lowest crime rates of the OECD countries, I wonder how much unreported crime there is here. I know we have much petty crime which must be tackled. I should like to see people's faith restored in the administration of justice.

The Minister has gone a long way, and I congratulate him on what he has done to date. He has reached out to the people, through the "Late Late Show" and other channels, so that the people know he means business. If, during his term of office, the Minister can restore our people's faith in the administration of justice he will have done a great day's work.

In the short time available to me I want to concentrate on a small number of areas of greatest concern to Democratic Left. The first is the appalling position with regard to free legal aid. Eleven years after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Josie Airey case which forced our Government to introduce some form of free legal aid it is clear that the system is in a shambles and falls far short of the standards envisaged by the European Court. Indeed it does not even deserve to be called a system; it is a total shambles, and a source of internationsl shame. There has been much talk in recent weeks about how European we are but no other country in Europe offers its citizens such an inadquate service in such a crucial area. Those involved have done everything possible to persuade the Government to take action to improve the service. Members of the Free Legal Aid Board have even resigned, all to no avail. Successive reports of the Free Legal Aid Board have painted a sorry picture of people being denied access to justice because of the inadequate resources of the board. There are long waiting periods for even an intitial meeting with a solicitor, with large areas of the country without a full-time law centre.

The results of a survey published just two weeks ago by the voluntary free legal aid centres demonstrated just how bad was the current position. All but one of the State's legal aid services have crippling backlogs of casework, with two of the three Dublin centres closed completely to non-emergency cases. The reality is that if one is poor, living in Dublin, in need of legal aid, one may have to wait until 1993 before one may even see a solicitor to seek advice. The position is not much better in other centres such as Tralee or Limerick.

Responsibility for this position, which hits people on low incomes most, almost always women in deplorable social conditions who often need rapid recourse to the legal system, rests with the Minister for Justice and his predecessors going back to 1959 who have refused to provide adequate resources to allow the board meet the needs of the people they are supposed to serve. Despite impassioned appeals from the board, even their members' resignation, the Government have refused to come up with the resources. The Government promised on a number of occasions to put the system of free legal aid on a proper statutory basis by introducing legislation clearly setting out people's entitlement. For example, it was promised in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government, published in 1991, but we still await the circulation of any detailed legislative proposals. Will the Government allow our country to be shamed again internationally by another of our citizens having to drag the State before the European Court of Human Rights to re-establish what has already been declared to be a fundamental European, if not universal, human right?

Another grave source of concern must be the continuing death toll in our prisons as a result of suicides. The most recent suicide is a matter of particular concern because it occurred in our most modern, recently built prison, Wheatfield. It clearly demonstrates that, like society as a whole, prisons can never be rendered entirely suicide-free. However, there is an indisputable link between prison conditions and the number of suicides that take place in them. That is why such a huge problem is encountered in the Mountjoy complex. The recent report of the visiting committee of Mountjoy Prison is a shocking indictment of years of neglect and mismanagement on the part of the Department of Justice.

The public may have been shocked at the description of the Dickensian state of the prison and the committee's reference to the appalling, grossly overcrowded conditions. The committee said those factors were contributing to "violence, sexual assault, riots, drug addiction and episodes of ingrained viciousness". These conditions will be well known to anyone who was unfortunate enough to have to serve a sentence in that institution or even visit inmates. They are also well known to the Department of Justice, having been drawn to their attention by successive reports of the visiting committee. They were also highlighted in the report of the Whitaker Committee, published almost eight years ago. Many of the problems in our penal institutions would have been avoided had the Government implemented Whitaker's basic recommendations on prison management and reorganisation. Everyone knows that the problems encountered in Mountjoy are particularly severe as it was a prison built in the Victorian era. There is overcrowding, inadequate sanitary facilities and poor recreational facilities. I contend that Mountjoy should be phased out or we will run the risk of more prison deaths and outbreaks of violence such as those seen last September.

Deprivation of liberty, in itself, is sufficient punishment for crime and should not be added to by forcing prisoners to serve their sentences in inhuman, humiliating and degrading conditions. These conditions drive some prisoners over the edge into the last desperate act of suicide. Society cannot remain indifferent to the death toll in our prisons. A human life is no less valuable because a person is in prison; the sense of loss and pain to the family is just as great as in any other case. We have had now 20 prison suicides in five years. The suicide rate in our prisons is running at almost twice the level of that in Britain and cannot be allowed to continue. There must be speedy implementation of all of the recommendations of the advisory committee on prison deaths. Even at this stage there must be a return to the principles and recommendations of the Whitaker Committee and a planned programme of implementation of the reforms advocated.

Like other Members I welcome the Minister for Justice who has moved his first Estimate in that portfolio in the House. In regard to prisons generally I welcome his reference to what he described as a thorough review of our prisons. If that thorough review is to be based on the very good, basic ideas set out in the Whitaker report, and nothing else, I would be very happy. As the Minister will involve himself in wide consultation in the course of that review I ask him to initiate in this House a widespread debate on the issue so that we can have some input in whatever may be proposed. Following the review is it the Minister's intention to compile a report for circulation to the wider community who pay such astronomical amounts in taxes for the maintenance of our prison system?

That leads me to questions in regard to a matter I had understood was to have been resolved long before now and which, in the context of the millions of pounds with which we are dealing in this House, brings into sharp relief the somewhat mealy-mouthed attitude of the Department of Justice. I am thinking in particular of the Nicky Kelly case. The Minister for Justice must be congratulated on having recommended to the Government and they, in turn, to the President who has by now, I understand, delivered the formal pardon to Nicky Kelly. The eventual finding of our administration was that he was never a person who should have been charged or indeed sentenced for involvement in the Sallins mail train robbery in 1976.

We were led to believe that the Government would then generously and expeditiously deal with the question of fair compensation. I regret to report that I was advised as late as this morning that no serious negotiations have taken place. I understand there have been meetings of counsel but that the State counsel involved have no clear mandate. I understand also that an ultimatum was delivered to the solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Kelly to accept a mealy-mouthed figure, take it all or nothing. I understand an amount which would not even cover Mr. Kelly's out-of-pocket expenses needlessly incurred to date endeavouring to pursue legal remedies before our courts. I urge the Minister to explain today his intentions in this respect; whether the Government intend to give any substance to the pardon issued him?

I ask the Minister to explain also what is the position with regard to the other persons who were charged, some of them convicted and later vindicated by the Court of Appeal. One man's case in particular, that of Mr. Breatnach, is currently before the High Court, and was adjourned without due notice, on 24 June, to next October, Why are those proceedings still being pursued if the Minister is being true to his word that Mr. Breatnach, and those others involved, would also be considered, in fair compensatory processes, as people who spent needless time, worry and much of their lives proving their innocence which we all now fully endorse and believe in? I hope the Minister will avail of the opportunity, when replying, to clarify the matter.

I also welcome the Minister's comments on the issue of policing and take note of the statistics he has given. We must ask what are the majority of our Garda doing? For example, the civilianisation programme must be intensified.

It is necessary, too, to give consideration to the deployment of gardaí. Cologne, a city similar in size to Dublin, has six police stations. I understand there are approximately 47 Garda stations in Dublin, with the result that much of the administrative work in the areas is duplicated. It is time we centralised Garda services in this city. Last night I attended a meeting of residents from the Sutton and Verbena areas. I asked them specifically whether they would prefer to see more Garda stations in the district or more policemen on the beat. They said they would prefer one central Garda station with more gardaí on the beat. I hope the Minister takes this clear message on board in his review of the management and development of our prison service.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to refer to other matters. Under the Programme for Government, the Minister has to meet 14 outstanding legislative commitments. I ask him to ensure that a fair proportion of these Bills are circulated during the long summer recess so that we can come back to this House in October ready to do more good work in reforming the criminal law generally.

I welcome the 1992 Estimates for the Department of Justice. Like previous speakers, I welcome the sentiments expressed by the Minister, which I know are sincere.

I also welcome the proposal to increase the number of civilian clerical staff employed in Garda stations. I accept that because of the sensitive nature of some cases civilian clerical staff cannot be employed right across the board. I urge the Minister to increase as a matter of urgency the number of trained personnel in Garda stations who carry out duties which do not entail a high security risk. Properly trained civilian clerical staff could deal with normal matters in Garda stations.

I should like to refer to crime and drug abuse, and it is important to put them into context. I believe many people are inclined to exaggerate about the level of crime and drug abuse in our society. My constituency of Dublin North Central which covers a large area — for example, Clontarf, Harmonstown, Artane, Coolock, Beaumont, Fairview, Marino, Donnycarney, Killester and Dollymount — has a vast social mix. I carried out a survey on the level of crime and vandalism in these areas. I got a very good response to the survey which revealed some very interesting statistics which I will pass on to the Minister for Justice and the local Garda Síochána. As I said, it is necessary to put the level of crime into context. Statistics are given from time to time on the overall level of crime in the country, but I believe that petty crime makes up a large percentage of these figures. Consideration needs to be given to the amount of valuable Garda time devoted to dealing with these crimes and attending court. There is much scope for improvement in this area, and, as I said, I will bring the results of my survey to the attention of the Minister.

I wish to refer to attacks on tourists. People involved in crime regard tourists as easy targets. I welcome the action the Minister has taken to deal with this problem during his short time in the Department of Justice. Earlier this month he indicated that there is a downward trend in the number of attacks on tourists. I hope these attacks will not affect our tourist industry in any way. We need to continue with the action taken by the Minister and the Garda Síochána to deal with this problem.

With regard to the Fraud Advisory Group, I ask the Minister to indicate the level of white collar crime and fraud; the powers available to the Minister, his Department and the Department of Industry and Commerce to deal with it; and how many convictions have been secured in the case of people who have committed white collar crime?

The Minister said that approval has been given to the introduction by the Garda Síochána of a new policy to deal with alarm installations which show an unacceptable pattern of false calls. I believe ordinary individuals on the street who may require the services or assistance of the Garda Síochána from time to time will heartily welcome this announcement. Many people believe that too much Garda time is being taken up answering false alarm calls which are possible due to a lack of maintenance on the alarm system. I welcome the Minister's statement that the number of false calls will be registered and a penalty imposed on the owners of premises which show an unacceptable pattern of false calls.

I note the recruitment of extra staff in the Land Registry. Perhaps it is because I have an uncle involved in land registration and who continually bends my ear about the unacceptable delays in this connection. I trust the increased staff will remedy the situation. The Free Legal Aid Centre in Coolock have brought to my attention the difficulties being experienced by them. I understand a sum of approximately £2.5 million is being provided in 1992 for the civil legal aid scheme. We should ensure that these centres are operated in the most efficient way possible so that the best value is got for this money and people who need the services can avail of them.

Yesterday I attended the launching of the Irish Refugee Council. I was on the "Pat Kenny Show" this morning in regard to the council. I know the Minister, and his Department, are fully au fait with this matter which will have to be addressed in relation to the 1951 Convention. I am aware that we have ratified the principles of the Convention but there could be better co-ordination between the Departments of Justice, Foreign Affairs and Labour in relation to visas. I am pleased that the Irish Refugee Council have been formally established and I hope there will be co-operation between the Government and that body.

I have asked questions in this House in relation to the Nicky Kelly case, to which the previous speaker referred. In the light of that case, and the British experience, I ask the Minister to consider establishing a procedure to review cases in the event of new evidence coming to light. Finally, I would like to refer to a matter on which I was ruled out of order a few days ago. Will the Minister consider introducing a Supplementary Estimate later in the year to cover the costs of barristers and solicitors in the beef tribunal, which are a scandal. I would like the Minister to elaborate on that matter and give the costs paid to barristers, solicitors, the number involved and the cost to the State of witnesses. Will the Minister indicate how he intends to minimise the fees charged at this tribunal?

I am happy to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this Estimate which is extremely important in so far as it tries to fulfil people's expectations that their rights will be protected. Much of what we say from these benches tends to be negative, and no doubt the Minister is well aware of that as he was good at being negative when he was on this side of the House.

I was never negative; I was always constructive.

I am sure he had some positive things to say from time to time. I wish to refer to one positive matter. Even though it was very humid on Wednesday we completed very important legislation. That was probably the high point of this Dáil. For the last five or six weeks while this House was dealing with the Criminal Evidence Bill, the public did not realise that such good work was being done here because it was perhaps a bit complex for television. The spirit of co-operation between the Minister and Opposition spokespersons was unbelievable. In the debate on Report Stage which went on to midnight on Wednesday in very humid conditions — nobody suffered from those conditions more than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle — the level of co-operation and standard of debate ensured that we produced very good legislation. The Minister promised to consider issues raised by Opposition spokespersons before the Bill comes back to this House from the Seanad.

It is a pity the public could not see the proceedings on this Bill because it would counter the bad image of politicians. Politics is not considered to be a very respectable profession these days. Had the public watched these proceedings they would have seen that this House is capable of doing great things. I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, my colleague, Deputy Shatter, Deputy McCartan and others who contributed to that debate and brought it to such a satisfactory conclusion. Let us hope that there will be more of that type of debate in the future.

I wish to refer to the civil legal aid system, mentioned by other Deputies, the status of civil rights and the ability of people, either on their own or through the intervention of the State, to defend their rights. From the comprehensive body of legislation we have one would think all was well with regard to civil rights in our jurisdiction. However, there are some extremely disturbing statistics. Some Members will be aware, for example, that 43 per cent of County Monaghan people qualify for medical cards directly or as dependants. In Donegal the figure is in excess of 50 per cent, which means that 50 per cent of the people of Donegal are on small incomes. That huge cohort of the population in Donegal are not in a position to afford litigation. That does not mean that they wish to take such action but I am sure many of them do, and without assistance they would not be in a position to defend their civil rights. The State is intervening through the civil legal aid system. All the reports and the experience of that system show that it is entirely unsatisfactory.

Deputy McCartan referred to this matter, as did other Members. The present system really only amounts to window dressing. We may boast that there are law centres in various parts but when we look at some of the reports from those centres we know that the way they operate is entirely unsatisfactory. They are understaffed and the demand for their services is too great. The Legal Aid Board are afraid to advertise their services because they know that if they did the legal aid system would grind to a halt within 24 hours.

What are we to do in these circumstances? Are we to provide money to open law centres all over the country, employing many solicitors? That would be quite expensive. Are we to employ private practitioners and pay them on a case-by-case basis? That would be utter madness and the cost over time would be enormous. I suggest to the Minister that there is another way or, as Fianna Fáil said some years ago, a better way.

When we were dealing with Justice questions on 11 June last, I asked the Minister if he had considered delivering the legal aid service through private practitioners on a contract basis. When I mention such a thing many people laugh because the legal system is a product of old times and it could not be described by anybody as being modern although the Government are committed to modernising it. Last Wednesday evening in this House we had a wonderful discussion about wigs and gowns for almost an hour even though they were not really a very important part of the legislation. However we discussed it because it is such an emotive issue. It raised the heat in the Chamber to such a degree that my colleague was unable to continue without removing his jacket. I know that there are intricacies in the system and that it might be quite difficult to operate it on a contract basis but I want the Minister to seriously consider my proposition. I am convinced that there are young, zealous, ambitious solicitors with a commitment to ensuring that justice is made available to ordinary citizens who would be able to work under contract. Will the Minister perhaps set up a study group to look at this? Some people think this would be impossible because of the way the system works but I believe it can be achieved. I accept that it would be difficult for a private law office to establish the sort of business they would be likely to get, but I am convinced that it could be done and that within the next five or six years it will be done. Will the Minister consider whether there is some merit in what I am saying and perhaps establish a pilot project to see how it would work?

The Fine Gael party are not happy with the way the Government are carrying out their function in this area. The Minister's speech was full of good intentions and fine language but we are unimpressed by the lack of action we perceive in the Department. Because of our dissatisfaction we will be voting against this Estimate at the opportune time.

I support the Estimate, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be highly successful in his job. The Minister outlined some of the important issues to be tackled. The Estimate here is almost £500 million, an increase of almost 5 per cent. The Minister said that £100 for every man, woman and child is being spent in this budget and that there is one garda for every 320 people. Such figures tend to make people think that it is a dreadful waste of money, but that is due to the society and there is nothing we can do about it. We have to have a police force, a court system and back-up services and society has to pay for it.

I agree with civilianisation in the Garda and I suggest that we have regard to the question of Garda stations. Near where I live there are four or five Garda stations within striking distance and some of them are very old. Will the Minister consider building new Garda stations or stations in more centralised positions in order to serve the public better?

The Garda authorities are in favour of recruiting more civilians into stations in order to allow gardaí to do more policing duties. Much time is wasted by gardaí doing civilian work, preparing papers and in attenting court. At about midnight on the Criminal Evidence Bill the other evening it was suggested that gardaí should not be required to attend court when documentation that a summons has been served could be used. That type of change would help the Garda to accept the fact that there are greater opportunities for civilianisation in the Garda Síochána.

Community policing is very important having regard to our quality of life. In all parts of my constituency where there are laneways and uncontrolled open spaces, late at night, particularly at week-ends, young people gather and use extremely bad language. Also they behave in a threatening manner. The very fact that young people gather and sit around together late at night creates dreadful problems for residents in an area. Since the Vagrancy Act was abolished gardaí cannot move people on. If people are creating a disturbance they can be moved but they cannot be charged. I know the Minister is looking at this problem and if he solves it it will be of benefit to society.

In my constituency I have been extremely concerned about the drugs problem during the past year or so. It is a major contributor to petty crime in the cities. In certain areas drugs are the cause of over 70 per cent of all crime. I was glad that some arrests in this respect have been made in the past few weeks.

Rape is one of the most horrific crimes against a person. There are indications that the incidence of this crime has increased dramatically over the past number of years. I wonder if society is able to handle the battery of influences from all sources? For example, the weekend before the bank holiday, Sky Movies had a free viewing of their weekend movies in order to publicise their wares. I watched two of the most horrific sex films free of charge in that time. I believe this type of promotion should not be allowed and I now ask the Minister to speak to his very capable colleague, the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, so that this is not allowed happen again. If one does not wish to watch this type of film one simply does not pay the fee for the movie service. People must be mad to pay the movie companies for such viewing. Young people are able to tell you what will be on every TV channel for the next fortnight and they will stay up late at night to watch these films. I maintain that Sky Movies should not have free access into everybody's homes. I am certainly not the most anti-liberal person in this House but I strongly object to this service.

People may assert that you can go down to the local video shop and take out one of these movies but I contend that you have to walk in and rent the film. Some young people can become so clued into what is happening on television that the violence seems natural and normal.

One film screened by Sky Movies over that weekend showed a young woman, an amateur prostitute one might say, who certainly revealed more than Deputy Shatter did the other day, being gang raped. Explicit sex scenes were beamed into Irish homes at 2 a.m. and I believe we have to guard against that. Other societies who have liberalised sex and drugs——

I am watching the clock, which is not as exciting as the television, but the Deputy has one minute left.

The Deputy is always very fair and very much to the point. I believe that if you go beyond a certain point in liberalising drugs or alcohol, society becomes uncivilised. We should never fall into such a trap.

Tourists expect to be able to leave their cars, with luggage, golf clubs and so on, in our towns and cities, but we know they cannot do so safely. I commend the Minister on the action he has taken to help combat crime in this area. Tourism is one of our major industries and it has certainly been affected by these crimes. I am delighted to see that the action the Minister has taken is bearing results.

First, may I say for the ears of the Whips, that it is outrageous and nonsensical that we are debating the expenditure of over £470 million in the space of three hours. To expect any Member, other than the party spokespersons who are allowed more time, to say anything meaningful about these Estimates in ten minutes is insulting. I know that I sound like a cracked record at this stage but this is not the way we should deal with these weighty matters.

In the short time available to me I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister for Justice and to the Garda authorities that will probably sound heretical but I believe it should be looked at. I urge the Minister and the Garda authorities to take a new look at the way we run the Garda force, to see if the existing traditional structures could not do with some fundamental change, instead of simply arguing about the proposal for an independent police authority, which I see has surfaced again in the Garda literature. I think this misses much of the point.

Taking everybody into account the force comprises 11,631 people. They are spending almost £263 million on salaries, wages and allowances and a good portion of this goes on overtime with a reasonable sum being spent on employing civilians. Apart from the civilians who are employed to do clerical duties, a concept I fully support, the whole Garda system is based on the proposition that a young man or woman is trained to be a good garda. They then go out and do a good job as a member of the force and those who are very good are in line for promotion to sergeant and they then become good sergeants. In the course of time some become inspectors and some are promoted to the rank of superintendent. After a period some may be promoted to chief superintendent, to assistant commissioner, to deputy commissioner and so on. I have the greatest respect for the people in the job and the people who are following that career many of whom are excellent but they all come through the system which is based on the proposition that you train somebody to be a good garda and in the fullness of time some will eventually arrive at the rank of chief superintendent, where they are responsible for a division, or if they are assigned to Garda headquarters they will look after a particular sector of activity.

What are they doing? They are running an organisation which employs 11,631 people, a very substantial body of people, leaving aside all the comments that one might justifiably make about the number of gardaí. The force have to run a widespread system of stations, and support the whole Garda operation on the £4.6 million being spent in this area. They also run a transport fleet. Their operational and capital costs will amount to £7.8 million this year; they are also running a radio system which will cost £3.1 million this year. As one must realise, a whole series of skills is required to run the whole system effectively and get the best value for money. At the end of the day good policing requires that we get value for money from all the services, personnel, stations, transport fleet, the radio system, etc. Clearly, to run an organisation employing 11,631 people we need a well developed system of industrial relations and we need that particularly in the Garda force. We do not want to have unnecessary conflicts with the 11,631 people. Clearly, too, we need a very good training system. While I acknowledge the improvements that have been made in recent years both in the facilities and quality and direction of training being provided, we also need personnel who know about fleet management because the fleet involves much more than patrol cars.

The Garda have a range of other support services. We need people who can co-ordinate a radio system and a computer system. A wide range of skills is required, including a number not directly connected with policing. One does not need to know anything about the detection of crime to be an effective fleet manager or to run a computer system, yet by and large the people who run these systems were recruited and trained as gardaí and over the years they have acquired other abilities. That is not necessarily the most productive way of bringing those skills into the system and applying them to the problems with which the Garda have to deal. There are specialist people in the radio and computer areas and people who have gained a great deal of expertise in running fleets but I suggest, without any disrespect, that most of these people are technicians rather than managers. While we have specialists in a number of these areas we do not have anything like what might be called a dedicated corps of managers specifically trained for running that system. If we are spending £474 million, we should consider why we do not have those managers.

Not many years ago it came to my attention that there was at one time a rather arbitrary system for deciding the overtime requirement of the force and how it would be used. Every year there was an argument about how much overtime was needed. The Garda authorities put their argument to the Minister for Justice and they argued with the Minister for Finance. I had the pleasure of being on two different sides of the argument. The authorities submitted that various notable events were to occur during the year. After much haggling, a figure was fixed. That figure was dismembered by the Garda authorities, who allocated it to various divisions. The divisional officers allocated it by district, according to their general hunch. It was then allocated on the basis of stations. The result was that in some parts of the country gardaí were afraid to get involved in various events because they would bust their overtime allocation, while in other cases gardaí were looking for extra work to use up their overtime allowance in case it would be cut the following year. That kind of thing results from having a system where people who are trained as police persons, men and women, eventually end up doing different jobs. I suggest to the Minister and to the Garda authorities that they give serious consideration, if only for a defined period of years, to bringing people into positions in the Force who already have a well established track record and career path in management skills. Only in that way will we use the £474 million to benefit the service provided by the force to the public. Some people may regard this as heretical but it is designed to help them better to do the job of policing.

Is maith liom an deis seo a bheith agam roinnt de mo thuairimí a nochtadh ar an ghné thábhachtach seo de shaol mhuintir na tíre.

I should like to associate with the words of congratulations extended to the Minister for Justice and on a personal level to say that I am confident in respect of the portfolio held by him that we will presently get a manifestation of his characteristic and proven talents. I would have the same confidence in the Minister of State.

It is not necessary to state how essential it is that we have an acceptable and respected system whereby wrongs can be rights and the constitutional and natural rights of all of our citizens are safeguarded and protected, a system which provides that appropriate remedies and deterrents are employed against all offenders. That should be the raison d'etre of the legal process. While I have absolute confidence in the Minister and the Minister of State and in their civil servants, I cannot honestly say that my confidence extends to the practitioners in our courts. I will give one or two reasons.

The system itself is cloaked in what I would regard as the virtuous mantle of guaranteeing that the innocent shall be protected and, one would assume, that the guilty shall be punished. Day in, day out, I have ample evidence of the reverse. Under this system, which is a type of linguistic and verbal gymnastics, enigmatical and perhaps fascinating, there is evidence that the guilty is more often proven innocent and that the innocent suffers. The practitioners do not make any apologies about that. The Minister of State read out here yesterday what I had proven on a television programme, that solicitors and lawyers are not interested in the truth, on their own admission. They are interested in pursuing the interest of whomsoever they presume to defend. Is that a good system? Is that a system which should be funded by our people? I do not think it is.

On a former occasion I went back some centuries to give myself courage by referring to an orator in ancient Greece who invariably finished his contribution by saying Cartago delenda est and having repeated it often enough the day actually arrived when Carthage was destroyed. I want the whole legal system examined and changed. These great people might use the phrase reductio ad absurdam. An example of the absurd is the case where a father does not deny that he is the father of a girl and the girl is there to give evidence, if asked, that she is the daughter of the father, but a person employed in this great legal exercise can put to the judge what he calls “a point of law” which takes precedence over the fact. In the Waterford case the unfortunate father, as I understand it, at no stage denied he was the father, rather in his statement he referred to allegations made against him by his daughter. Nevertheless, the lawyer was able to present a case to the judge and prove that in law the man was not the father. The man was acquitted and today the daughter, whose rights we were required to protect, wanders around, the victim of having attempted to get justice for herself in respect of appalling offences committed against her.

Another case brought to my notice, not quite so serious, tends to bring to the whole exercise the characteristic of a lotto type attitude — dependent on the day, the pesonalities looking after your interest, the judge and the humour he is in, anything can happen. This is not terribly different from the rules, regulations and principles that govern the lotto. This was the case of a couple whose car was stolen. Two days afterwards, because of the great work done by the Garda, the car was found in Swords, with the person who had stolen the car in it. He was one of these present day youths with what I call the chestnut hairstyle and he had rings in his ear. He was brought before the court and the judge asked whether the prosecuting lawyer had evidence before him — we should remember this youth was caught in the car — this young gentleman did not have the permission of the owner of the car to be in it. The unfortunate prosecuting lawyer said he did not but it happened that the owners of the car were there and could be called. The judge said: "I did not ask that question, I asked, do I have evidence before me that the young gentleman did not have permission of the owner to be in the car?" There was some mumbling or fumbling by the solicitor, who was there on behalf of the State, but the judge said: "Case dismissed".

I have respect for Deputy McCartan who is a member of that profession but in my listening to him he never allows the traditions or the requirements of the esprit de corps to override that which he regards as essential. I should like to put to him a question about what is called “free legal aid”. That is only a euphemism for guaranteeing that solicitors get their fees. Looking at the modus operandi and what it is there in aid of, I do not see why the rest of the innocent community should be obliged to provide for a situation where a person who is guilty of some crime is given the right to silence, if he tells the truth he will be convicted but, at the expense of the rest of the community, he can employ a person whose professional expertise allows him — even though he is guilty — to bring in some doubt to “get you off”.

Deputy Taylor made an excellent point when he talked about the judges not understanding the economic or the financial significance of imposing a fine of £250 on a person who did not have £250. In respect of a service which affects so many of our people it is extraordinary and terribly disappointing when parchments are being presented to solicitors and gentlemen and ladies take silk or are called to the Bar, I seldom see a Finglas, Ballyfermot or Darndale address. Our values on everything will be conditioned by our homes, our social environment and we, better than anybody else, understand the difficulty in providing £250 rather than those who never had to worry about £250, where that sum merely refers to digits rather than practicalities and difficulties that people have to endure.

Acting Chairman

I am calling Deputy Garland who must conclude his contribution at 1.15 p.m.

These are the first Estimates the new Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn, has presented to the Dáil and I am sure he would like to make an impression. He can make such an impression by dealing forthwith with Ireland's blots on our justice books— such as the Nicky Kelly case, the Tallaght Two case, the applications for refugee status by such people as Marey Guatrami and the unfortunate Liberian, Foster.

I should like to deal first with the Nicky Kelly and Tallaght Two cases. Those cases were highlighted by Michael Heney in RTE television programmes. Why is it that the Department of Justice have to be shaken out of their apathy by television programmes? Is the Minister aware of the commitment by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, to the Meleady and Grogan families in November 1990 when Joseph Meleady finally accepted early release from Mountjoy jail? Earlier when the then Minister for Justice offered Joseph Meleady early release he declined to take it, but when the former Taoisech, Deputy Haughey, gave a commitment that an investigation would be carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that the report would be ready in weeks rather than months. Joseph Meleady accepted early release which saved the Government further embarrassment during the presidential election campaign. This report has been with the Attorney General since last year.

The Heney programme raised many serious questions on the convictions of Meleady and Grogan. One year later, a programme also produced by Michael Heney was shown, highlighting the injustice of Nicky Kelly's conviction. Nicky Kelly has now been pardoned but the Tallaght Two have not. Why is the report on the Tallaght Two still being examined by the Attorney General? Surely the procedures are much the same. What does this report contain which is keeping it under raps? This is not good enough.

When will the Tallaght Two be officially vindicated? When will Nicky Kelly be given compensation? Following on from this what about Osgur Breatnach's proceedings through the courts for damages against the State? Notebooks compiled by gardaí who interrogated Breatnach in 1976 are being sought by way of discovery since last May. The High Court has ordered the State to furnish these but, without explanation, they have not been supplied. The State applied to the High Court for an adjournment until October saying that this was with the consent of Breatnach but this was untrue. How can the Minister stand before us today, debating Estimates for a justice system which shows so little justice or compassion.

Why can I get no information from the Minister regarding the most dreadful case of Marey Guatrani and, indeed, others who are seeking protection from this so-called caring and Christian society. Why have those seekers after safety been locked up in one of the worst Dickensian prisons, Mountjoy, where they have been attacked by other prisoners? Where is the Minister's heart? Where is the much vaunted Irish care for minorities? Where does that show? It is on the scrapheap, and what is the Minister going to do about that? Action is required now — not next week, next year or the year after. How can we hold up our heads when such dreadful things are happening on the doorstep of the Department of Justice?

The continued delay in the ratification of the Convention on the Exchange of Prisoners has now reached the level of low farce. It was apparent from the Minister's demeanour when I raised the matter at Question Time recently that he has no intention of ratifying the convention. I remind Members of the House that the purpose of that very humane convention is to allow prisoners to serve their sentences in their native country, close to family and friends. Where is the Minister's heart? Where is his christianity?

I question the treatment that the Minister has already meted out to the Garda Síochána. Could it be considered, as the editor of the Garda News states, arrogant or even rude? What about the serious concerns that the Garda Síochána will have protecting this country from arms importation and drug trafficking when the internal borders come down within a few months' time? What is the position of the request of the force for the establishment of divisional intelligence units to help them with the increased importance of coastal watch, counter smuggling and arms searches? What does the Minister have to say about the dissatisfaction of the force regarding the conditions of many Garda stations? It was appalling to hear the Minister say, “Castlebar Station is one of the last remaining bad-condition barracks in the country”. Does the Minister have so little knowledge of his new portfolio that he would make such an incredible inaccurate statement?

I turn now to the conditions of our Prison Services. I am pleased that some action is being taken to improve conditions in Mountjoy, particularly in the women's prison. The improvements do not come before time. Many people have lost their lives in Mountjoy, presumably caused by conditions in which factoryfarm animals would not be kept — and the House knows of the Green Party's attitude to keeping farm animals in such dreadful conditions. The Minister keeps human beings that way and then wonders why they kill themselves out of deep and uncontrollable depression, out of extreme hopelessness.

The Minister referred to the small claims procedure. That is an extremely important issue and it is one about which the Consumer Association of Ireland have been lobbying successive Ministers for Justice. The reference to the small claims procedure in the Minister's contribution is full of the usual cliches such as the position is being "closely monitored". The matter is a very simple one. For goodness sake, surely we could just get out and do something. People need to be taken out of the clutches of solicitors in respect of simple cases for which the fees charged are completely out of proportion to the amount of work involved. The matter could be dealt with very easily.

I am very pleased that there has been an increase in the Vote for the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds, because serious delays have been experienced in those two sections. I notice that a sum of £11.3 million is provided whereas the revenue in a full year will come to only £2.6 million. I put it to the Minister that there is no reason that the ordinary taxpayer should be expected to pick up the shortfall of about £9 million. Why should the unemployed in Ballyfermot and Darndale, who pay their taxes every time they have a pint, be expected to subsidise land owners, property owners and house owners? They are well prepared to pay their way. If it costs £11 million to service the Land Registry, then that £11 million should be collected from those who are using their services.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt you, Deputy Garland, but I must ask you to conclude.

I conclude on that note, Sir.

Acting Chairman

Thank you, Deputy. There are now five minutes available to Members of the House who wish to ask the Minister to clarify specific issues during his reply. I ask Deputies to be as brief as possible.

I wish to ask a few specific questions of the Minister in relation to the Estimate. There is a reduction in the moneys made available to the conciliation service. Could the Minister explain the reason for the reduction and the work that the conciliation service are doing?

My second question relates to an issue that I deliberately did not raise today because it has been raised on so many occasions and we seem to get nowhere. It remains a concern of the House that the position of the alleged Tallaght Two has not been resolved. Could the Minister say what is happening in that regard? Why has the matter been delayed for so long?

My final question relates to the court system and two innovations promised by the Minister. Perhaps the Minister would clarify what has happened with regard to the promised special court for dealing with civil appeal cases and why there is no apparent provision for it in the Estimate. The other promise concerns the putting in place of procedures to allow alleged miscarriages of justice to be looked into. What is happening there? Will legislation be introduced in that regard or will a special tribunal be established to deal with that or will it be dealt with in the manner recommended in the existing report?

I welcome the Minister's proposals to establish a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter McGuire, Senior Counsel, to examine the whole area of fraud. I did not have the opportunity to comment on these earlier. The Minister anticipates that the working group will submit a document to him towards the end of the year. Does he intend to publish that document or to make it available to either the Law Reform Commission or Members of the House for consideration and deliberation? Given what is envisaged, I urge the Minister to do that.

The Minister mentioned that there were approximately 750 people on community service work, which seems to be a very small figure over the whole country. In view of the Minister's commitment to working the non-custodial aspects of penal law, does he envisage any substantial expansion of the number of people ordered to do community service work in the coming year?

Finally, I presume that the Minister will respond to the questions I raised about the Nicky Kelly case and the position of Mr. Breatnach and other in his general reply.

I also wish to ask the Minister about the Nicky Kelly case and the position of compensation, which was promised and has apparently been long delayed. Will anything happen shortly in that regard?

I join with Deputy Shatter in raising this issue of the Tallaght Two, a case with which I have been involved for some time. The Taoiseach gave me a reply in the Dáil some months ago that a report on the case was imminent. He assured me that the result of the Attorney General's inquiry would be published. Could the Minister indicate the exact position in that regard?

Bearing in mind the examination and the research carried out in respect of the payment of social welfare benefits such as the widow's pension of £58 per week and that before payment is made a widow has to prove that her late husband is dead and give a whole lot of details, what modus operandi guarantees that the payment of £1,750 per day to a lawyer has been well earned? Does a lawyer get that amount for attending for part of a day or must he attend for a whole day? Who certifies that the lawyer's exercises on a particular day are worth to the community the money that has been paid?

I take the opportunity to thank those who contributed to the debate and, by and large, made very constructive contributions. I felt that the vast majority of those making contributions wanted to be helpful and ensure that better value is obtained for the money being voted here today. I appreciate their remarks because the vast majority of contributions were helpful in trying to see that better value will be got for the Estimate introduced here today. Of course not every contribution was helpful but the Member to whom I refer has left the Chamber so I will deal with the matter some other time.

In reply to Deputy Shatter, I am having the mediation service reviewed and I intend to appoint a review committee very shortly. The mediation service continues to operate as heretofore in the meantime and a sum of £122,000 has been allocated for that purpose. However, I will look more closely at that aspect.

Nothing has yet appeared on my desk in relation to the Tallaght Two. I indicated that when a report is sent to me from the Attorney General I will deal with it expeditiously as I did in the case of the report on Nicky Kelly. I am sure it is acknowledged that as soon as I received the report in relation to Nicky Kelly I dealt with it. The issue of compensation has been raised in relation to that case — there have been comments in the newspapers about it — and I understand that negotiations are taking place between the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the legal representatives of Mr. Kelly. I am sure the Deputies would not feel it appropiate to deal with the matter in the House. I sincerely hope that the negotiations will be concluded soon. When I announced a pardon for Nicky Kelly I made a comment in good faith about compensation; obviously, there will be negotiations which will conclude as quickly a possible.

Is there provision in the Estimate for compensation?

We will be able to come to an agreement regarding any recommendations agreed as a result of negotiations. I know Deputy Shatter is concerned about the miscarriage of justice, I commented on it recently but it will need legislation which, I hope, will be on the Statute Book this year. I will not commit myself to complete agreement with the Martin recommendations in that regard as refinements may be needed. However, we are at an advanced stage in preparing a decent response in that regard. If necessary, I will give it priority and I hope to be able to deal with it this year.

Deputies will be aware that we have taken steps in relation to fraud and that the number employed in the Garda Fraud Squad has been increased substantially recently. We brought back some people who have considerable expertise in that area who had moved to other sections as a result of promotion. They have dramatically inproved the situation. It must also be remembered that they can — and do — seek outside expertise if and when it is required to deal with cases. I have looked at the names of people involved, there is considerable expertise within the Garda Fraud Squad as some of them are very highly qualified, one is an accountant. The advisory committee have been appointed and I have asked them to report to me around Christmas. I do not know whether it would be useful to make the report public, normally matters of that kind are internal. I expect that they will also be dealing with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on dishonesty. I am sure there is general support in the House for implementing a system which will cater for white collar fraud, some of it on an international scale. The Criminal Evidence Bill got a good reception in regard to how it would help to deal with that matter. There is a positive attitude in the House in relation to what is being done in dealing with fraud.

Deputy McCartan referred to community service orders. About 3,200 offenders — not all involved in community service orders — are on probation or release and are doing various work. I hope that we can improve on the number of community service orders as an alternative to a custodial sentence. Deputy Shatter has been quite active in this regard over a number of years and I said previously that I support his view. As I said, a review is taking place at present and the Department are dealing with it urgently. We have the consultative paper ready which deals with all organisations and groups within the penal service at present. I hope, when we get it all together, we will be able to outline a strategy. One of the strategies which will be adopted will certainly be alternatives to custodial sentencing. I would not like to go any further than that except to say that other areas, apart from community service orders, could be considered. I look forward to a very lively debate on the report when I introduce it.

Deputy Tunney made an interesting contribution in regard to the legal profession, trying to get justice in the courts and having a system whereby the guilty are proved guilty and sentenced in the proper way. I should like to think that the courts have that as their primary concern and that that is the way they work. He raised an interesting question about the level of fees paid and I will take a closer look at that. He made a case in regard to a particular instance in which inquiries are concerned and it is something which will have to be addressed in a serious way before too long.

Deputy Briscoe also referred to community service orders and I take it that there is general support in the House for alternatives to custodial sentencing. This means that there can be an important input to the review.

I took particular notice of the question raised by several Deputies about the level of fines and I will take it up with the President of the District Court on their behalf. Of course we cannot interfere in this regard as the laws are in place and the maximum penalties applying in any case are on the Statute Book; the judge makes his decision in that regard. However, something must be said in regard to a fine of £250 imposed on someone drawing the dole of £52 per week as against somebody earning £100,000 having the same fine imposed on him. Deputies have made petitions in this regard and I should like them to understand that these are looked at——

I compliment the Minister on his sympathetic approach.

They are looked at in the way in which Deputy Taylor suggested today. It is a very onerous task, administratively, in which to be involved and perhaps if we could deal with the fine at source it might relieve me of involvement. The Minister must look at every file and I spend a considerable amount of time doing that, it is not just a flick of the wrist, one has to examine the history of the case, circumstances at home, the Garda and probation officer's report and so on. Deputies come across many of these cases in their constituencies. I regard such cases sympathetically and I hope the Deputies realise this. Deputy Taylor's attitude in this regard touched a chord so far as I am concerned.

Crime was mentioned by many Deputies and, while there has been an increase, I know we would all support the Garda in combating it. Deputy Shatter said that crime increased by 8 per cent in urban areas in 1990. He speculated about the 1991 figures. He will be pleased to learn that the figure fell by almost 3 per cent in the Dublin area and rose by about I per cent for the country as a whole.

The question of prison suicides was raised also. I would draw the attention of the House to the media report yesterday which indicated that there has been a major increase in the number of recorded suicides for the population as a whole. This should be borne in mind when we come to talk about the number of suicides particularly in our prisons. Prison suicides are the source of great concern for me and it is not a question of two suicides to date this year, three or four last year or five the year before because even one is one too many. However, I was taken aback by the recent suicide at Wheatfield which is the most modern prison in Europe. Careful consideration was given to all the matters raised in planning the institution, including the need for surveillance and understanding on the part of the suicide team which operates there but despite this it still happened. It would lead one to think that perhaps we should take another look at the advisory committee's report and that is what I am doing.

Will the Minister write to me in connection with Derek Ward?

Deputy Shatter said that we should do something extra to help people in prisons.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 1.30 p.m. I must put the question.

We have 130 whole-time teachers who are very active and concern themselves greatly with literacy levels. When one considers that there are 50 people studying Open University courses within the prisons one gets a fair idea of how much educational activity there is in the prisons.

I would like to thank those who contributed to this debate. A good job is being done. However, no one mentioned that the Garda Síochána are celebrating their 70th anniversary this year. I therefore take it that together with the Minister, Members would like to congratulate the garda on the fine work they are doing.

Votes put.
A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 July 1992 in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 25 June.
Top
Share