Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 May 1941

Vol. 83 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 32—Officer of the Minister for Justice.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £29,382 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Dlighidh agus Cirt.

That a sum, not exceeding £29,382, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.

I presume that, as in former years, we will debate together all the Votes for which the Minister is responsible?

Yes; the procedure will be as usual.

Mr. Boland

I intend to deal with all the Votes in my statement. In none of the Votes is there any remarkable increase or decrease in the amount asked for as compared with the amount granted for the year 1940-41. The net result, over all the Votes, is a slight decrease. This is due mainly to a net decrease of about £34,000 in the Gárda Vote, No. 33. This decrease really arises from the fact that last year's Gárda Vote was abnormally high, because of two large items which do not occur this year, viz.:—

1. Provision of uniforms, equipment and grants-in-aid for the purchase of boots for members of the former Group "A" of the Local Security Force, now the Local Defence Force.

2. Purchase of wireless apparatus for Gárda headquarters.

The decrease in this year's Estimate would be larger but for the fact that the year 1941-42 is one of the years in which there are 53 weekly pay days for the Gárdaí, outside the Dublin metropolitan division, instead of the normal 52. The net result, as I have stated, is a decrease of about £34,000 in the Gárda Vote. I may perhaps add here that there has not been any recruitment either for the Gárda proper or for the Taca during the past year, and none is contemplated or provided for in the Vote, except to the extent that the figures in the Vote are based on the assumption that if the Taca — which depends for its legal existence on an Emergency Powers Order — disappears in the course of the year the Gárda will have to be correspondingly strengthened.

The outstanding feature of the year, so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, was perhaps the initiation and rapid growth of the Local Security Force, which has developed in a remarkably short time into its present status as one of our main bulwarks in the present emergency. As Deputies are aware, Group "A" became, at the beginning of the present year, the Local Defence Force and passed into the control of the Minister for Defence, while Group "B" took over the title of Local Security Force and remained under civilian control.

I expected that when that happened we would have difficulty in retaining a great number of people in the Local Security Force. Personally, I expected that the glamour of the Local Defence Force might have attracted all our Local Security Force men. I think that would be a very serious thing if it had happened, but I am glad to be able to say something like 60,000 men have remained on to do the excellent work which the Local Security Force have been doing.

I may mention some of the work which they have done and which could not have been done without their help. There was the tea rationing scheme, in respect of which their work was done in a most efficient and expeditious manner. When we wanted to get statistics as to the accommodation available in evacuation areas, the Local Security Force took on the task — I think they were helped by the Local Defence Force. The Local Security Force are also helping the Department of Agriculture in trying to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease from the scheduled to the non-scheduled areas. Generally, they are doing excellent work, and I wish to express my deep appreciation, on behalf of the Government, and to say that, in our opinion, their work is as important as that of any other service in the country.

I have now to refer to the less cheerful side of the picture, that is to say, anti-State activities. I said last year that we had had to intern about 20 persons and that about 110 other persons had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for this class of offence. As Deputies probably know, the regrettable fact is that these numbers have greatly increased since then. The number of persons actually interned at present is about 400. That figure does not, of course, include those who were interned and subsequently released. In addition to the persons interned, about 200 persons were convicted by the Special Military Court and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment or penal servitude. That is a very unpleasant recital and I can only hope that we have seen the worst of it. I need hardly say that in this state of affairs a heavy, dangerous, and most unpleasant task has had to be discharged by the Gárda Síochána. Some of them have lost their lives in discharging it; some of them have suffered serious injury; and I have had occasion to observe and praise instances of courage and devotion to duty on the part of members of all ranks of which the general public cannot know.

I may perhaps take this opportunity to mention that I am convinced that the present state of the law as regards compensation for injuries received by members of the Gárda as a result of this kind of activity is unsatisfactory, and I hope to introduce legislation to amend it so that compensation may be obtained in every proper case with the minimum of delay and expense.

There are a few other matters on which it may be useful for me to say a few words. As Deputies are aware, the Report of the Town Tenants Tribunal, presided over by Mr. Justice Black, has been received and the text is at present with the printers. I expect that the printed report will be available very soon to Deputies and to the public.

There is also the matter of the making of Rules of Court, which is directly relevant to the sum of £300 mentioned at item A (4) on page 142 of the Estimates. In re-reading the report of what was said on this occasion last year, it seemed to me that there was a little misunderstanding on this subject, which it may be well to remove. Prior to the passing of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, the duty of making Rules of Court was imposed by statute on the Minister for Justice, but the Minister had to obtain the concurrence of the appropriate Rules Committee and also the concurrence of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The 1936 Act, however, transferred to the Rule-making Committee the duty of making the rules; the Minister's duty is now merely to signify his agreement to the rules as drafted by the committee and the Houses of the Oireachtas have now no function in this matter. The passing of the 1936 Act made new rules necessary to govern procedure in the case of appeals from the Circuit Court which are now dealt with by way of rehearing locally by judges of the High Court on circuit. These particular rules were made in the following year, 1937, and are in operation.

The heavy and important task of substituting an entirely new code of rules in place of the old High Court Rules has been taken in hand and is more than half completed. The Rules Committee, in this case, asked for and received the assistance of a special draftsman, for whose fees during the year 1941-42 the provision at item A (4) on page 142 of the Estimates, to which I have referred, has been made. Payments already made under this head in previous years amount to £400 and the total cost is estimated at about £1,000. The Rules Committee of the Circuit Court has been occupied with the preparation of a new code of rules on one particular matter of great importance, viz., the procedure in workmen's compensation cases, and very considerable progress has been made.

The general revision of the Circuit Court rules, including the question of costs, about which complaints were made, is also under consideration. In the District Court, also, the production of a revised code of rules is under the consideration of the Rules Committee. I may, perhaps, remind Deputies that the functions of the Rules Committee are not confined to making rules. There has also been entrusted to them, by the Act of 1936, the duty of reporting as to any alterations which they may think desirable in practice, procedure, administration, and law. Both branches of the legal profession are represented on the committees and I may, perhaps, remind all interested persons and particularly Deputies who are members of either branch of the legal profession that the Oireachtas has thus provided an opportunity for the investigation, by a skilled committee, of proposed reforms, which deserves attention. The Rules Committee for the purpose of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, have, in fact, presented a number of very valuable recommendations for the amendment of that Act.

The work of the courts appears to be in a satisfactory condition. In particular, the delay in dealing with appeals from the Circuit Court, which, some years ago, was frequently complained of, has disappeared since the change in the appeal system which was made by the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. In the Circuit Court, it has unfortunately happened that two judges in neighbouring circuits have been absent, owing to illness, since the beginning of the present year. The work of both circuits is being done by one temporary judge with the assistance, from time to time, of members of the Circuit Court bench who can spare a little time from their own circuits. I desire here to express my thanks for this assistance.

In the Land Registry — Vote No. 37 — there are, unfortunately, some arrears of work, but they have been very considerably reduced since last year and further progress in that direction may be expected.

In the Vote for Prisons — No. 34C — it will be observed that the Estimate is based on an anticipated prison population of 525 as against 535 for last year. The expectation of a further decline in the prison population, which is the normal experience, may not be quite realised owing to the number of persons convicted of offences against the State, of whom there are at present about 50 in prison. As I have already mentioned, there were about 200 convictions of this kind, but it has been the practice for some time past as regards persons convicted by the Special Criminal Court that only those who are sentenced to penal servitude are kept in civil prisons. The majority, about 150, who are serving sentences of two years, or less, imprisonment are kept in military custody, and the cost of their maintenance, etc., does not appear on the Prisons Vote.

There are only four prisons actually being used at present — namely, Mountjoy, Portlaoighise, Limerick and Sligo. Cork Prison is, of course, being used, but not as a prison. We are using it as a Borstal institution. Arrangements have been made whereby the prisoners are allowed out of their cells, in association, for two hours each evening, when they were formerly locked up. That is a reform made during the last year.

As regards the Borstal institution, it has been clear for a long time past that the premises at Clonmel used for this purpose were unsuitable owing particularly to the absence of any playing field. Some months ago, the military authorities made an urgent request that the institution a Clonmel should be handed over to them for military purposes in connection with the present emergency. This was done, and the inmates and staff of the institution were transferred to Cork Prison, from which the ordinary prisoners were removed, being distributed between Limerick and Portlaoighise. I have recently visited the institution in Cork, and it seems to me that these premises also are unsuitable as a permanent arrangement. Deputies will appreciate that the present time is not a good one for making better arrangements in this respect, involving the acquisition or building of new premises, but I am very anxious indeed to do something in the matter, and I shall see that no opportunity to do so is neglected. I do not think that I have any more to say at this stage, but if there is any point on which Deputies would like further information, I shall do my best to supply it.

I am glad to hear the Minister pay a tribute to the Local Security Force and to the Guards who have found themselves working under very great difficulties in certain cases and in certain places. I had a motion on the Order Paper that this Estimate be referred back for reconsideration which I do not propose to move. I have discussed with the Minister the matter that urged me to put down that motion and, after my discussion with the Minister, I am quite satisfied that it is not necessary in any way to labour the position that I wished to put before him and before the House. I think, however, that it is necessary to refer to it in short and general detail. We are in a very serious situation. All through the country every class of person is being called upon to organise in one way or another to support some arm of the Administration. Men and women, anxious to uphold the State and preserve it in every possible way, are giving time, and very often giving money, in that way. There is no part, I think, of the administrative machinery in the country that more represents, in the popular mind, the State than the Guards do, particularly in the more distant parts of the country. They are the sign that the State exists, and the position and the conduct and the attitude of the Guards determine, to a very large extent, the kind of co-operation that the people generally can give to the general institutions of State, determine the respect in which the State as a whole is held by the people, and determine the people's morale, because if the State and its institutions are represented as dignified, strong and capable, then the morale of the people as a whole is raised.

There are certain districts in the country where, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, there are senior Gárda officers who are not fit for their responsibilities there, who have discredited themselves in the eyes of the local people and who are no longer held in any respect at all. That is not a matter that has occurred since the emergency, but the fact is that, at the moment, to go back no further than that, there are districts in the country where there are senior officers of the Guards who should not be in the position in which they are, and whose presence in that position is a blow to the institutions of the State. Their character is such that they are not only not able to attend to their business, but they are disedifying and their administration is partial. There is a number of ways in which the presence of men like that in such positions can be a source of injury, first, to the men who have to work under them and whose honour and whose domestic fortunes depend to a large extent on the way in which they are treated by their superior officers and either helped or hindered. So far as the ordinary rank and file of the Guards in these areas are concerned, the men who, as the Minister says, have in certain circumstances to act with courage, to deal with difficulties, and even to sacrifice their lives — these men's fortunes and happiness and their domestic well-being are, naturally, in the hands of their superior officers. Other officers, working under these people, are in the same position.

At the present time, men who are working in the Guards ought not to be asked to work in circumstances in which, through the lack of character and the weaknesses of their superior officers, they and their corps are in danger. In the second place, the administration of the officers to whom I am referring is partial, and it is very easy to imagine what that may mean in certain districts. In the third place, to-day you have the Local Security Force and others rallying around the Guards on the one hand and around the Army on the other hand. The Minister has explained what valuable assistance the Local Security Force can, and will, give, and if you have a prominent Gárda officer there in the centre of that, and particularly in a controlling position, who is obviously not the man to be in that position, you are injuring the whole of the Local Security Force, and ultimately — particularly in an emergency situation — no class of the people can be anything but fearful that there is a lack of grip in Government circles when, to the broad knowledge of everybody in a district, men are standing, in the uniform of high officers of the Guards, who are not fit to be there.

The Guard's job is a difficult job, and the most difficult part of his job is not when he stands up to danger or difficulty. He is in a job where he has to be in touch with all classes of people, at all times and under all circumstances, and in the interests of the State, of his work and of the people, he should be in a position to be able to stand to attention in an honourable and decent way on every occasion. He should be in a position to do his work fearlessly and should be stood over by his superiors and helped by them rather than be hindered, and he should not have to go about among the people feeling that his commanding officer has not the respect of the people.

As I say, I discussed this matter with the Minister and I am quite satisfied that he is aware of it and appreciates that it has to be dealt with. I simply want the Minister to be told by the House here that there is no section in the House that will not help him to do that job. We cannot afford, at present, to have these weaknesses. On the other hand, there is no section of the House that will not criticise the Minister if that job is not done, because there is too much depending upon it. I am quite satisfied that the Minister intends to deal with it, and I sincerely hope he will because, if he does not, the matter must arise in more detail and, if it should arise, it may have very serious repercussions on certain sections of the Guards themselves and on certain classes of our people. I assure the Minister, knowing what I do, on almost every side of the House, that if he faces up to this matter and cleans up these difficulties that exist, he will have the support of every man who cares for the State and of every man who is doing anything at the present time to try to help the State to stand up against the difficulties of the present time — difficulties which will not be so great if we do not shut our eyes to these weaknesses and if we see that things are put right in the way they should be.

I should like to congratulate the Minister, his Department and those concerned, firstly, on the working of the new High Court and Circuit system. Since this system has been introduced it has been welcomed by the people of this country, by the legal profession and by everybody who has had any connection with the courts of this country. It has worked out much cheaper than we thought it would when it started. It has given excellent service and is a much more satisfactory system in every way than the old system of rehearing on the stenographer's notes. There was a little difficulty at first owing to lists of cases not being fixed for those courts, with the result that you had a large amount of witnesses' expenses being incurred, as witnesses were held over from day to day. That, however, has been got over and the system is working very smoothly and most satisfactorily at the moment, and everybody connected with it, both the judges and the registrars, are to be congratulated on the success they have made of it.

I think that, having gone so far, the Minister and the Department could go further. Anything that I suggest to the Minister will not, so far as I can arrange it, involve expenses. I think the Minister will have an opportunity of carrying out further reforms in our legal system and possibly he may not get a better opportunity than the present for doing it. I cannot understand why the Minister will not arrange to have the jurisdiction of the District Courts increased.

There has been a great outcry about the cost of litigation. There is no doubt that the cost of litigation in the Circuit Courts to-day and in the higher courts is absolutely out of all proportion and is certainly beyond the means of the ordinary country man. Last year when this Estimate was under discussion the Minister's predecessor promised that something would be done in that connection. To-night the Minister told us that something is being done about it. It is regrettable that something was not done within the last year. It is absurd that a tuppence ha'penny title action, in which the valuation of the land is 30/- or £3, should cost each litigant about £30 in order to have it decided by the Circuit Court.

I do not see why such an action should ever be brought in the Circuit Court. There should not be any need to bring it there. District justices are sufficiently qualified to try actions of that type. As a matter of fact, much more difficult questions are brought before the District Court for decision and are decided there. It would be an easy way of tackling the question of the expense of litigation, if we increased the jurisdiction of the District Courts.

As regards the high cost of litigation, I think that is largely due to the system of pleadings which we now have in the Circuit Courts. The experience of the Minister's Department was that the old system of having appeals from the Circuit Court considered on the stenographer's notes instead of a rehearing was not satisfactory. At any rate, they have now rectified that matter. I think they could go still further, and when they realise that the system of pleadings in the Circuit Courts is costing litigants a considerable amount of money and tends to increase the costs of litigation, perhaps they will decide to abolish that system. I really do not see that there is any necessity for pleadings in the Circuit Court. In the old county courts you had an ordinary civil bill without any pleadings and when that came on for hearing nobody appeared to be dissatisfied.

I do not see what assistance pleadings are. Take an ordinary negligence action. It is pleaded in the Circuit Court that the plaintiff suffered no damage or that there was contributory negligence on the part of the defendant. I do not see how that will help the plaintiff or defendant except that the defence may possibly have to be represented by counsel, and he gets £2 2s. for it. I do not see that there is any necessity for an appearance being entered in the Circuit Court within ten days from the issue of the civil bill. The mere entering of an appearance does not mean very much. It is simply a form saying that "an appearance is hereby entered", and there is a stamp put on it. Solicitors' offices are packed out with these pleadings in Circuit Court actions, pleadings that mean nothing and that have no beneficial interest for either side. To my mind it is simply keeping up expense on the litigants, and there is nothing to justify it, because no benefit accrues to either of the parties.

Those actions, in my opinion, ought to be tried without any pleadings. There might be a simple notice relative to particulars, but under the present system you have something like that already. That system might possibly continue, but apart from that, I cannot see, in the actions that are day after day before the Circuit Courts, what necessity there is for pleadings. They merely serve to heap expense on the public. The Minister should put an end to those things, and in that way he will bring litigation in the Circuit Court within the means of the ordinary countryman.

Is the Deputy advocating a change in the law?

I am simply making what I consider are important suggestions to the Minister. If the Minister suggests a change in the law, it is a matter for him, but I am not advocating that. Now that we have the High Court on circuit, and now that the system is working so satisfactorily, I suggest that actions brought to the High Court in Dublin, because of the extent of the jurisdiction there, should be tried on circuit by the judges who go out. It is a terrible hardship on many people to have to travel to Dublin from remote parts of the country. They are put to very heavy expense travelling to Dublin and they have to bring with them all kinds of witnesses, expert and otherwise, and have to pay some of them in advance. I think it would be much more desirable if the High Court judges on circuit tried those actions through the country so that the people would not have to bear so much expense.

It would certainly help many people if their actions were tried locally. It would be bringing justice more or less to the door of the poor man. I am sure that nobody appreciates more than the Minister that to bring an action in the High Courts in Dublin is an absolute impossibility for a man who belongs to the poorer elements in the country. Such people are unable to bear the expense of taking an action there. I think it would be an excellent reform to have those cases tried by the judges on circuit. It would not involve any further expense on the part of the Department of Justice, but it certainly would save a good deal of the expense that at the moment has to be met by the people.

I should like to comment on the fees that are being charged by sheriffs in connection with the execution of warrants and decrees. There is a mileage charge for sheriffs' messengers for the execution of decrees and the issuing of warrants, and this should be made subject to revision. Let us say that a sheriff lives and has his office in town A and the individual against whom the decree is being executed lives in town B, perhaps 80 miles away. The sheriff has an agent or local messenger in town B and that messenger executes the decree, but the individual concerned is charged expenses on that decree as from town A. The result is that you have amazing amounts being charged by way of sheriffs' fees. You have decrees being executed for sums no greater than 10/- or 12/- and the fees and expenses amount to £2 or £3. I regard that purely as a racket and a scandal and it should be investigated by the Minister.

I raised this matter elsewhere and I was informed that it was purely the concern of the Minister. I do not see how that system can be justified. I have come across that in several cases, and I am sure every local practitioner has come across it. The result is that this system has sprung up, that when a sheriff's messenger gets a decree for £2 to execute, his expenses are about £5 to execute that £2 decree; he gets 5/- or 6/- from the debtor to make a return of nulla bona, and does so without any further investigation. I think the Minister should have that matter investigated and see, if there are mileage expenses to be charged, that they should not cover the distance from the sheriff’s place of residence to that of the particular debtor.

For some time past the practice has been, on the occurrence of vacancies, to amalgamate the duties of the probate officer and the sheriff with those of the country registrar. My own experience, and I think it is the experience of the great majority of my profession, is that that has not been working very well. When a county registrar has to carry out the duties of the sheriff's office and of the probate office, he has too much work on his hands and is not in a position to carry out the duties as satisfactorily as when these were separate offices. In the first instance, I think it is wrong that the county registrar, if there is a decree granted in the Circuit Court, should have to sign an order directing himself as sheriff to execute it. I think that is absurd. My experience in areas where the county registrar acts as sheriff has been that it is practically impossible to get a return from him within any reasonable time. The Minister may say that that procedure is justified on the ground of the saving of expense. But, when you make the county registrar a kind of Pooh-Bah to carry out the duties of county registrar, sheriff, and probate officer you will not save expense.

Would not a change in that respect mean a change in the law?

I am not sure of that. I am not advocating a change in the law. I am leaving it to the Minister to see how it could be remedied.

So far as the Chair is aware, it could only be remedied by a change in the law. Therefore, the Deputy is advocating new legislation, which is out of order on an Estimate.

I quite agree that I cannot advocate new legislation on an Estimate, but I am suggesting that some reform could be carried out without new legislation. In that way I suggest I am in order in raising the matter on the Estimate. I suggest to the Minister that the allowances made to a county registrar for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the sheriff's office and the probate office amount to more than would pay the salary of a sheriff and the salary of a probate officer, and that in fact there is no real saving made by amalgamating these offices.

As to the Gárda Síochána Estimate, I know that the Gárda Síochána have cooperated in the formation of the L.D.F. and the L.S.F., and that most of the officers have worked very hard and done very well in connection with these forces. One matter has been brought to my notice in connection with the Gárda Síochána and the question of the Irish language. I was rather amazed to find that, where Guards have gone to the trouble of perfecting themselves in the national language and getting the Fáinne, they find themselves transferred to Gaeltacht areas and put into what are popularly termed bog stations. If Guards go to the trouble of perfecting themselves in the national language, I think that certainly should not be a hindrance to their being transferred to a better type of station. I know of cases in Galway and in my own county where Guards have been due for transfer to a better station, but the fact that they are proficient in the Irish language has prevented their being transferred, the excuse being that suitable men could not be found to fill their places, with the result that they are left in these stations. I think that, instead of a knowledge of the language operating against them in that way, these men should get a preference if they want to be transferred to better stations; that it should not be allowed to go out to the force that the fact of being proficient in the Irish language means that men will be kept in some places where they do not want to remain. I think that would have a very bad effect, and that it is having a bad effect already on the force. I should like the Minister to see that in future proficiency in the language will not mean that men are kept in backward parts of the Gaeltacht.

There are a number of other matters on the Minister's Estimate that I do not wish to go into. There is, however, one matter that I suggested on many occasions to the Minister's predecessor and that is that various branches of our law should be reformed and brought up to date. I think it is absurd that we should be so far behind every other country in one respect particularly, and that is that an heir-at-law in this country inherits on intestacy; that when an owner of real property dies intestate, the eldest son, who may have been the greatest blackguard in the family, and who may have been away from the country for years, inherits that property, no matter what the former owner may have thought about him.

Is not that the law?

In England they passed a new Law of Property Act in 1925. I think we are about the only country in the world that still allows the heir-at-law to inherit on intestacy, without any particular reason for it, or without any particular merit on his part.

The Deputy is advocating a change in the law.

I am still leaving that to the Minister.

Will speakers who will follow the Deputy be allowed as much latitude in reference to advocating changes in the law as he has been allowed? It would be a most interesting debate if they were.

The Deputy might move to report progress.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday.
Barr
Roinn