Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1944

Vol. 93 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 32—Office of the Minister for Justice (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a sum, not exceeding £31,597, 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, 1945, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.—(Minister for Justice).

Deputy Larkin was in possession when the House rose last night and I have no desire to usurp his position.

Deputy Larkin informed me that he has been detained on important business.

Last evening, some very nice tributes to the Minister for Justice were paid. Every member of the House will agree that the Minister makes himself the most approachable and accommodating Minister of all. Certainly he is accommodating quite a big number: that description is very right. Deputy Linehan alluded to the tramps and others known as gypsies who go round in caravans touring the country. The Irish people generally, both rural and town folks, are very friendly disposed to them but they have become a bit of a nuisance. As Deputy Linehan remarked, some 30 or 40 years ago they were quite useful citizens—tinsmiths and metal workers. I myself remember their being at that work. I can tell of a particular case where five caravans came to a town and set up near it. About eight or ten people then came along begging. The Irish people are very kind to poorer people but these beggars are a nuisance. During the day when the men are in the fields the farmer's wife or daughter is at home and these beggars make a raid on the place. They ask for a grain of tea or sugar or a bit of bacon and are never satisfied. One would not mind that so much but they hold up the lady of the house in that way and, in the meantime, the hen roost and the hay loft are raided and any loose feeding round about the house is stolen.

Deputy Linehan did not make any suggestion as to how those people should be dealt with. I do not think I can make one either but I remember picking up a copy of the Wide World magazine which showed that President Roosevelt was faced with the same problem. There were 2,000,000 people on wheels at that time apart from the hoboes or train jumpers. The article was beautifully written by a university man who had been in jail and who had been later put in charge of one of the camps. He called a halt by erecting little wooden huts at each town. Inside six months he had them all held up and interviewed them—they now had at least one friend left and he had 1,500,000 placed inside six months and the whole 2,000,000 placed inside nine months and they became very useful members of society. The hoboes and train jumpers are just dying out.

There was then the problem of the old Ford cars. In Missouri there were 2,000 of them. A man selling petrol there was very anxious to get rid of them and would give a quart of oil to get them on to the next town.

Those tramps on the roads here seem to have degenerated in the same way. They do not seem to bother very much about birth control. I saw three generations of such children; they marry very young and breed like rabbits and consumption is unknown amongst them. I remember a time when I had some five acres of potatoes to be picked and there was rain impending. I asked some of those men to come in but there was nothing doing. I heard one of the lads return from town later and his father said to him, as he had not had a successful day: "I will make you go in there and pick spuds." In the town of Cahir market day on a Friday is a gala day. I was going in on the bus on a ten-mile journey one Saturday morning. Seven of them got in and paid 9d. each to get into town. The return journey cost them 10/6. Their peregrinations around the town came to my notice. I never saw a more drunken crowd leave it. They created seenes and their language was terrible. I suggest to the Minister that the Roosevelt method might do something in the way of making such people useful citizens. With regard to those people, their horses, mules and asses grazing on the road carry on their osculations with farmers' animals. Many diseases in animals may be traced to that. Farmers consider it much better to give these people supplies of milk because otherwise they will go out at night and milk the cows. The tinsmiths and the metal workers have practically ceased to exist. These young boys and girls do not go to school and there is no earthly chance of doing anything with them.

With regard to the birching system, Mr. Parnell got birching done away with in the British Army and gained great commendation for his efforts. It is a disgrace that birching should be permitted here. I appeal to the Minister to take that power off the statute book. If the youngsters cannot be chastised except by birching them then the world must be coming to an end. It is extraordinary the number of bachelor Deputies who spoke on this Estimate. We all know that married people with no families themselves are for ever giving advice to other people as to how they should rear their children. I reared three boys myself—their mother died young —and I never laid a hand on one of them. I do not agree with the saying "spare the rod and spoil the child." When I was a youngster I got plenty of floggings from my parents, and I must say that they left a bitterness in me. I think birching is a brutal thing. The correct way to rear children is by precedent and example and birching should be done away with.

There is another matter that I approach with some trepidation. It is a matter in which I am deeply interested. I do not like being too personal, but I have a boyish memory of the Minister's father and mother. I had the Minister in my arms when he was a youngster. I would not like by word, deed or action to interfere with him. Great compliments were paid to him last evening. He is certainly a gentleman—good hearted and good natured.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is out of order.

I have a suggestion to make to him. I have a friend in the glasshouse. Owing to an attack of illness I was not able to travel to see him. He is a glorious fellow. His brothers and himself refused a pension. He is above price. I do not say that pensions are a bribe, but he is a man of the highest ideals. He has unhealed wounds on his body. I know his brothers and sisters, and his aged father who is in a low state of health at the moment. I know they would like to have this boy home, but they would not lower the flag. I do not like to go too closely into the matter of the 345 who have been released or the 200 still to be released. In the case of these men, would the Minister accept the will for the deed? I suggest to him that a friendly Deputy or two from each area might interview them. I do not think they should be asked to sign any bond. I kneel down twice a day and say "Peccavi". I wonder do I mean it?

Why not bring them in chocolates, cigarettes and other luxuries?

Of course, I will. That goes without saying. I am anxious to throw oil on troubled waters. I think that a little heart of grace and consultation in the Cabinet might do wonders. I think that these grand fellows are in the mood now, but there is no use in trying to get them to admit that they did wrong. It would be just as well to give that a miss-in baulk, as we say in billiards. We want those men out. I believe that if they are let out they will be good citizens, and that the bulk of those who have been released have been fitting themselves in with the laws of the State. I think that the balance, if released, will do the same. One of them, the son of a neighbour of mine, is out on parole at the moment in connection with the division of an estate. As I have said, all those young fellows have fine ideals. I think the Minister should approach the situation with a little boldness. If he does, he will win out.

What about the murder of policemen?

As I said before, I am approaching this subject in fear and trepidation. I am making suggestions that may help the Minister out. As a matter of fact all my folk are interested in those young fellows, and I believe they will be all right in the future if an amnesty is proclaimed. I remember as a youngster when Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Egan and Mr. John Daly were released from jail. It is the loss of liberty that is killing those men. No matter how well treated a man may be in jail he feels the loss of his liberty. An All-Ireland footballer, who spent a period in jail, as a result of an accidental occurrence following a football match, assured me of that, and he was one of the grandest characters I ever met. I asked him what did he feel most—he was in Clonmel jail for 18 days—and he said he felt most the loss of liberty, the thought that he was there and could not get out. These men have expiated any wrong they have done by the time they have spent in jail, and I think the time has come when the Minister should deal with them in a broad way. I do not think he will have much cause to regret it. May God guide him in arriving at a decision and I hope we will see those people out very soon.

After all the very nice things that have been said about the Minister, I am rather hesitant to intervene in the debate, but I think it is only right and proper that from the Independent Benches there should come some tribute to the Minister's courage and sense of justice during his period of administration. I understand a good many complimentary remarks were passed yesterday about the Minister's administration. I want to add my quota. The mamby-pamby stuff we have listened to about extending mercy to all those people who did not extend any mercy to the policemen they shot, or attempted to shoot, is the kind of stuff that has led up to the imprisonment of a lot of these young men. We have a plea for clemency for them, but there was little or no sympathy expressed publicly in this House or outside it with the victims of those people.

It is about time we began to think that, in this House, we should have some sense of responsibility. We have not heard many people condemning the attacks on the instruments of law in this country, the armed attacks, the cowardly and brutal murders and assassinations, and there was no horror at all expressed in this House at these happenings. There were no words of condemnation expressed here about the acts of these murder gangs. The Deputies on the benches over there know that as well as I do. We have all this namby-pamby stuff, coaxing the Minister to let them out and trusting again to the leniency of the Minister. It cannot be forgotten that the Minister, in his goodness and kindness, and soft-heartedness, if you like, did release a number of the prisoners. What was the result? Some of them again conspired to undermine the institutions of the State and the result was the murder of one or two policemen here in Dublin. There was not a word from people like the members of the Farmers' Party about the widows and orphans who were left behind as a result of these murders.

I do not want to encourage the use of the birch, but I hope the Minister at some future date will look into the merits and the justice of administering the birch or the cat of nine tails to the garrotters and the robbers who attack undefended women at nighttime when they are on their way home, snatching their purses and bags and robbing them of whatever they possess. I feel that in cases of robbery with violence the only thing to strike terror into the heart of that class of ruffian would be to use the cat of nine tails or the birch. That is the proper type of punishment to inflict upon those people. I suggest that encouragement is being given to them by the type of speeches to which we have just listened.

I was asked to deal with one case a few weeks ago. The case is as follows: A young lad left Cork with the alleged intention of attending an All-Ireland Final. He went across the Channel. His people did not hear a word about it until six months afterwards, when they were informed by the British authorities that this boy had been sentenced to 20 years in jail. Subsequently the parents were informed that the boy was in a mental hospital. The boy is still there and will remain in the mental hospital during His Majesty's pleasure, possibly for 18 or 20 years. I asked the sister of that boy did she know the party or parties responsible for sending him across the Channel to throw bombs into railway stations, to put bombs into suitcases, to drop bombs into pillar boxes, thus bringing disgrace and discredit on this nation. Those things were done in the name of the I.R.A. I do not know if the I.R.A. were responsible, but those things were done in their name. We have not heard a word of condemnation of these acts in the Dáil. Instead, we have had a lot of namby-pamby stuff.

We condemn them, Deputy.

I know the Minister's Department is doing its best and I know, because of the type of speech I have listened to, that there is a sort of terror abroad; people do not want to give the information necessary to put those persons in their proper place. The people who sent that young boy to commit those crimes against society in England have a big responsibility. That was not a national effort, although we had a paper in Dublin talking about "our forces abroad". We read about this alleged Irish army conducting the war against Britain, but we all know in our hearts and souls that that is so much tommyrot.

Now we are told that the Minister should exercise clemency and let these people out of the jails. I have very grave doubts if the authors of the outrages in England, the real people, the forces behind the throne, have been arrested in this country. The Minister's Department should endeavour by every possible means to get at those people. By "every possible means" I mean that, if necessary, they should go outside the various Acts of Parliament, habeas corpus and the rest of it, in order to put down this sort of ruffianism. It can never be done if we have public men, and more especially members of the Dáil, telling the Minister to exercise further clemency and not treat these people as criminals— people who are exercising their brains and intellects to undermine the institutions of the State.

I take off my hat to the Minister for Justice. He was in opposition at one time and, like his associates today, he then had little sense of responsibility. The Government in office then found it necessary to pass the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, otherwise known as the Public Safety Act. Later, when the present Government were first faced with responsibility, they began to realise the responsibilities of Government and they got to know the difficulty of government in this country. Having realised that difficulty, they had to introduce even more penal legislation than the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act. It takes a whole man to say: "I was wrong once, but I am not going to be wrong a second time." That is why I salute the Minister for Justice. He has shown determination and courage. It takes a 100 per cent. man to say that he was wrong at one time when he opposed the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act and to admit that he did not know the extent of the ramifications of the organisations that were then, as well as now, trying to undermine the Government.

I salute the Minister because of his method of administration. I have the feeling that he is humane to the extent of 100 per cent. In fact, his humanity in my view went too far. I believe he has erred on the side of leniency and humanity 100 per cent. in the course of his administration. I am very glad to notice that there is no question of referring this Vote back. No matter what expense it may be, if you have not this Department administered in the one and only way you will never have peace or ordered government in this country. If you want to cultivate the best sense of citizenship and to try to check that stampede from civic sense in the country, you will have, first of all, to support the Minister in his administration of justice, and it is the only way.

I think it is time that this House and the people generally should understand clearly the position in regard to the right of the Government to intern citizens without trial. This House has approved of the Emergency Powers Act which gives the Minister that power. But it must be clearly understood, and I think the majority of Deputies understand, that men who are interned without trial are not being subjected to punishment for any offence which they have committed. They are being kept in custody in order that the State may be safeguarded. For that reason, the Minister should not be appealed to so much on the ground of clemency. He should be appealed to, if he is appealed to at all, to review carefully and at frequent intervals the position of each interned person, to find out whether or not that man can, with safety to the community, be released. That should be the first and most important consideration influencing the Minister's decision. To allow himself to be swayed by appeals made by Deputies or by friends of internees or by anyone else on the ground that these men are suffering severely would be betraying the trust placed in him. These men are not being interned for the purpose of inflicting any punishment upon them. They are being interned to safeguard the community, and the safety of the community should be the Minister's first consideration.

Let there be no mistake about it, internment does inflict very considerable punishment upon these men, in spite of every effort which the Minister may make to prevent it, because the first objective of the Minister must be to ensure that these men will remain in custody, that they will not escape. In order to ensure that, he must restrict their liberty to a considerable extent. He must also ensure that they cannot direct the operations of any organisation outside with which they are connected from within their prison walls and there again there must be a restriction on their means of communication with the outside world. Those things do imply a very severe hardship on the men interned and, for that reason, it is the duty of the Minister—and I think the Minister as a conscientious man realises it is his duty—to see that no man is retained in custody for one day longer than the safety of the community demands.

It is very easy to make appeals to the Minister to put those men on trial. That point was raised by Deputy Connolly and other Deputies. It is an appeal which would be popular. But I think everyone who has considered this question realises fully the difficulty of securing an impartial trial in certain cases, particularly in the case of organised crime. It was the experience of the United States when dealing with organised crime on a big scale that they could not secure convictions against the leaders in that campaign and, as a result, the State was almost brought into a condition of confusion and chaos. If the Executive Government in the United States availed of the power of internment they would probably have broken the organised opposition to the law more speedily. There is no alternative to giving the Executive Government the power to intern in certain cases, but we must ensure, as far as possible, that ample safeguards are provided to see that no real injustice is inflicted.

It may be asked: what safeguards do we suggest. I think that men who are interned are at least entitled to have their cases investigated by some form of visiting committee. I do not know if the Minister has ever considered that question. But I think there should be a committee appointed which would visit the internees, consult with these men, find out what is their attitude to life and to the law, find out whether their views in regard to the observance of the law and the duties of citizenship have changed in any way during the course of their internment. The Minister might ask how you would constitute such a committee, who would be the people to form such a committee. First of all, as internment must have a certain serious effect upon the mental and physical health of such persons, such a committee should include a highly-qualified medical man. Then, as a considerable number of the persons interned may be young and inexperienced, it is desirable that there should be also on the visiting committee some person who has been in the habit of dealing with the young, such as a teacher or a professor in one of our colleges or institutions; somebody who understands the mentality of young people and who could talk to them in language which they understand. Then, in order to ensure that there will not be political victimisation in the exercise of this power of internment, it would be desirable that on the visiting committee there should be some representatives of other political Parties besides the Government Party so as to safeguard the rights of the citizens and the rights of minority political Parties. I have said that the right of internment, so far as I can ascertain, is justifiable, but I have also indicated to the Minister that he must see that that right is exercised judiciously. He must see that it is not allowed to be prostituted into a tyranny which would seriously interfere with the rights of political minorities. The Minister is a conscientious man, and I think he will take all aspects of this question into consideration. I think he should set a headline to other Ministers who will come after him by providing certain safeguards for people who are interned. One of the safeguards which I have suggested, and which appeal very strongly to me, is a visiting committee to look into the case of each individual sympathetically and thoroughly.

The Minister has under his control one of the most important forces under the authority of the State, that is our national police force. He is charged with the duty of seeing that that force discharges its duties thoroughly and efficiently. He is charged with the duty of seeing that its members are fairly treated. I think that in the pre-war period, and particularly in the early stages of the life of our present police force, there was no very grave cause for complaint in regard to the remuneration of its members. But since the emergency, since the abnormal increase in the cost of living, and since the natural increase in the expenses of members of the force with growing families, it is the duty of the Minister to re-examine the matter of their remuneration and see that it is adequate. It is essential that members of a police force should be paid sufficient to ensure that they can maintain themselves and their families on a fairly decent standard without having to sink into debt, because nothing could be more undesirable than that members of the police force should have to seek credit from people with whom they have to deal in the enforcement of the law. I am not satisfied that the present remuneration of the members of the Gárda is adequate during this emergency, and I think there is a case for reconsideration of the matter.

Another question which arises at the present time, and which will become more important in the course of a few years, is the question of the recruitment to the Gárda. Many compliments have been paid to the existing force. Having regard to the circumstances under which the force was established, having regard to the fact that the force had to be started from scratch, and that practically the entire personnel were new men with no experience, it is extraordinary how efficiently and effectively they adjusted themselves to the maintaining of order in this country. There is no doubt that the present Gárda have set a fairly high standard for those who will come after them. At the present time the number of vacancies in the force is extremely limited, and that situation will prevail for a few years to come. After that, having regard to the fact that the entire force was recruited practically within the same year, there will be a large number of retirements. I am putting it to the Minister that he should see that during the present year and the next few years the standard of qualifications for members of the force is raised to the highest degree. If the number of vacancies is limited, and if, as I understand, the number of applicants for the force is large, it is the duty of the Minister to see that the best possible men are secured.

I want to know what exactly is the position with regard to recruitment at the present time. I understand that the Commissioner of the Gárda selects the candidates who are to sit for examination. My information is that the Commissioner selects a very limited number of candidates. If there are, say, 160 vacancies and the Commissioner selects, say, 180 or 190 candidates to sit for examination, we have the position that it is the Commissioner who is really making the selection of the members of the Gárda, and that they are not really selected by competitive examination, because the examination is confined to a very small number of candidates. If that is the position, it is altogether wrong. I hold that every candidate who fulfils the statutory qualifications for membership should be allowed to sit for examination. That is his right, and it is necessary in order to secure that the highest standard of qualifications, educational and physical, is obtained. To confine the number of candidates sitting for examination to a very small percentage of those who make application is preparing the way for favouritism on a very wide scale. I am not suggesting political favouritism, but there may be favouritism of many other kinds which would be equally undesirable. I am told that the number of candidates selected for examination is very little more than the number of vacancies. Therefore, practically all who sit for examination can get through.

Mr. Boland

The number of candidates selected is about twice the number of vacancies.

Could the Minister say what is the usual number of candidates?

Mr. Boland

I think in the beginning the number was about 2,000, but it has gone down very much lately. There were very few the last time, but the number was about 2,000 a few years ago. There would be only about 100 vacancies at the time, and 2,000 applicants.

In view of the fact that you might have 2,000 applicants for 100 vacancies I do not think the Commissioner would be justified in cutting down the number sitting for examination to barely twice the number of vacancies. After the examination, I think there is a medical test, which might eliminate quite a considerable number, and it is hardly fair to cut down the number of candidates so drastically. As a matter of fact, I think there should be very little restriction on the number who come forward for examination, because you have to get the best and I understand the educational test is not very stiff.

I have a number of reasons for raising this matter. First of all, there is, as I said, the danger of favouritism— the danger of the Commissioner being pulled or dragged by individuals seeking to advance the claims of particular candidates. There is also a need during the next few years for the raising of the educational standard of members of the force. It may not be possible to do so when the number of vacancies becomes great in the course of nine or ten years, but during the next five or six years I think a real effort should be made to get into the force men of the highest educational qualifications. The Minister will realise that that is very desirable.

Another matter to which the Minister should give attention is the recruitment of a certain number of women police. So far as I can gather from the Book of Estimates, there are only two or three women police in the force at present, and I think that number should be substantially increased so far as the large cities are concerned. Women police would be more effective in dealing with various types of juvenile crime and in carrying out many of the other duties which devolve on members of the Gárda. Women, from their knowledge of their own sex and of children, would be best qualified to discharge these duties and the Minister ought to state the reason for the failure to increase the number of women police.

There is no doubt whatever that the present position in regard to crime, both major and minor, is alarming. The fact that crime has not substantially increased this year as compared with last year is no reason for complacency on the part of members of the House, in view of the fact that crime was rampant in 1942 and was very substantially in excess of crime in the pre-war period. While I consider that the position is sufficiently alarming to require the very earnest attention not only of the Minister and his Department but of members of the House, I am prepared to admit that there will always be a substantial increase in crime during war-time and allowance must be made for that fact. Nevertheless, while making due allowance for that fact, we must also take into consideration that, as emergency conditions become more difficult, there is always the danger that crime may become more rampant. For that reason, it is the duty of the Minister not to allow himself to be lulled into a sense of complacency by the fact that the crime wave has been held, so to speak, during the past year, but to take ample and adequate precautions to see that, if emergency conditions become worse, the crime position will not also become much worse.

There is no doubt that the main reasons for crime lie in the fact that people seek to obtain other people's property without going through the formality of earning it. That is, and always has been, the main motive for crime, and, when supplies are short, it is inevitable that crime should increase. At the same time, adequate precautions must be taken to protect property and life, when necessary. I have frequently suggested that the ordinary uniformed police cannot adequately deal with crimes against property, particularly at night, and that it is essential that all cities and large towns should be actively patrolled by plain-clothes men. That would make the position of the would-be criminal much more difficult than it is when he has to deal only with the uniformed man on beat duty. I have also suggested that these plain-clothes men should be provided with bicycles in order to enable them to do their patrols noiselessly and speedily and thus take would-be criminals off their guard.

Another of the undesirable tendencies which are apparent to every Deputy is the growth of crime amongst juveniles, which has been dealt with by other Deputies. There is, however, one aspect which has not been adequately stressed, that is, the growth of drinking amongst the younger generation. It is a rather peculiar thing that, for a period pre-war, drinking amongst the young had very considerably declined. It has, however, recurred on a large scale, and I believe that the facilities for drinking at dances have contributed in large measure to this undesirable increase. It has often surprised me why more attention is not given to the enforcement of the law with regard to drinking by persons under the age of 18. I know how difficult it is to enforce that law and, so far as I can gather from statistics in relation to one recent year, only one case of a person under age charged with drinking was brought into court.

It is common knowledge that drinking by persons, both boys and girls, under 18 is extremely prevalent, and I want to know what steps the Minister is taking to deal with that evil. I am one of those who hold that the age of 18, in relation to this matter, is not sufficiently high, and I am one of those who tried to have the law in that respect amended, but, at least, the law as it stands should be rigidly enforced. If the Minister takes the line that it is difficult to decide the age of persons engaged in drinking, I think it is his duty to find some means of surmounting that difficulty. I have often been inclined to think that the law in regard to drinking was somewhat lopsided. It is the consumers and not the retailers of drink who should be licensed. It is unjust to place the entire onus of finding a person's age and habitation entirely on the publican. Sooner or later, regulations must be made to assist the members of the licensed trade in carrying out the law. I would like to know if the Minister consulted the Gárdaí on that matter and if they had any suggestions to make. It is certainly a criminal thing to have young boys and girls drinking excessively, particularly at dances and such amusements.

In my constituency—Wicklow—an experiment is contemplated in regard to the attendance of young people at cinemas. In Bray it is proposed to confine picture houses with the ordinary programmes to persons over a certain age. That is a very desirable experiment and one to which the Minister should give very close attention. It is a reform which must inevitably be widely introduced. Frequent attendance at cinema shows has a very deteriorating effect on the minds of young people, and it is absolutely impossible for them to attend picture houses night after night without having their entire mental outlook completely influenced. In the majority of cases, these shows have a demoralising effect on them. Certainly, they are not of a very edifying character for young people. There is no reason why shows should not be provided at certain hours specially for young people. In this respect, I would like to see steps taken to ensure that the programmes provided for young people are sufficiently attractive to leave no desire on the part of children to attend the adult shows. I would also like to see their programmes sufficiently informative, attractive and amusing for adults. Fathers, mothers, grown-up brothers and sisters often like to attend a matinee or other show in company with younger members of the family, so the programme should give a reasonable amount of entertainment to grown-up people. That reform is long overdue and is one which should appeal to the Minister.

It is absolutely necessary to ensure, in the post-war period, that the members of the Gárda Síochána will be adequately housed, under conditions which will not impose any extra cost on themselves or on the State. In the housing schemes for Gárdaí, steps should be taken to see they are located convenient to the Gárda station, so that the men may be available always for the performance of their duty. Owing to the shortage of houses at present, some Gárdaí have to reside at a great distance from the station and this seriously interferes with the efficiency of the police force.

Do chuala mé caint indé ó Theachta a bhí uair amháin ina Aire Dlí agus Cirt. Chuir sé i gcuimhne dhom an sean-fhocal atá againn: "Is mó cor a chuireann an saol de." Dubhairt sé agus chuir sé i dtuisgint don Dáil nach raibh sé sásta in aon chor leis an árdú páigh a fuair na Gárdaí le linn na haimsire práinne seo. Ní cuimhin leis in aon chor, is dócha, an t-am a bhí sé féin ina Aire agus a dhein sé laghdú ar an méid a bhí ar fáil aca an uair sin. Bhí sé sin níos mó ná deich mbliana no dhá bhliain déag ó shoin.

Tá cúpla pointe agam le cur os cóir an Aire. Maidir leis an nGaeltacht, do cuireadh scéim ar bun roint bhlian ó shoin i dtaobh obair na nGárdaí do dhéanamh trí Ghaedhilge ar fad agus ba mhaith liom a fháil amach ón Aire conas tá an scéal mar gheall air anois. Bhfuil sé i bhfeidhm fós? Bhfuil na Gárdaí ag glacadh leis an scéim seo? Bhfuil na Gárdaí ag leanúint de?

Níl siad ag leanúint de ar chor ar bith.

Conas tá an scéal mar gheall air? Mara bhfuilid ag leanúint de, is truagh liom go mór é. Ba mhaith liom eolas éigin fháil ón Aire faoi sin. Más fíor an rud a dubhairt mo chó-Theachta nach bhfuil siad a leanúint de, ba mhaith liom go gcuirfí an scéim sin i bhfeidhm maidir leis an nGaeltacht. Níl aon ní is mó do chuir an Béarla i bhfeidhm sa tír seo ná dlí agus cúrsaí dlí. Níl aon ní is láidre chun cabhrú le haithbheoehaint na Gaedhilge agus buanú na Gaedhilge sa Ghaeltacht ná an scéim sin gur tosnuíodh air roint bhlian ó shoin. Scéim ana-mhaith a b'eadh í.

Tá rud eile ba mhaith liom a chur os cóir an Aire agus eolas d'fháil ina thaobh. Deineadh a lán tagairt insan díospóireacht so mar gheall ar dhaoine sna príosúin i láthair na huaire, ins na campaí. Maidir le scaoileadh na bpríosúnach, nó iad do choimeád, tá mise sásta le breithiúnas an Aire agus breithiúnas an Rialtais. Ní maith liom aoinne d'fheiscint i bpríosún nó fé smacht más féidir é sheachaint. Ba mhaith liom fháil amach ón Aire an bhfuil caoi ag na príosúnaigh sin, an fhaid atá siad i bpríosún, suim do chuir i gcúrsaí oideachais. Bhfuil caoi aca ceachta fháil ar nós na gceachta a bhí le fáil fadó, ceachta Gaedhilge? Tá a fhios agam nach féidir leis an Aire a chur d'fhiachaibh ar aoinne dul ag foghluim na Gaedhilge mara mian leis féin é. Ba mhaith liom go mór go mbeadh an chaoi sin le fáil ag na daoine ins na campaí anois.

Maidir leis an meastachán i gcoiteann, níl le rá agamsa ach go mba mhaith liom go gcuirfí an dlí i bhfeidhm go cothrom ar gach aon dream sa tír. Tá an dlí céanna againn do gach aoinne. Isé dualgas an Aire, dualgas na Roinne agus dualgas na nGárdaí an dlí do chur i bhfeidhm go cothrom agus go macánta. Ná bíodh dlí fé leith d'aon dream, dlí fé leith d'aon tigh tábhairne amháin agus dlí eile do thigh tábhairne eile. Ba cheart go mbeadh cothrom na Féinne le fáil do gach aoinne. Isé an príomhchuspóir atá os cóir an Aire ná an dlí do chur i bhfeidhm go cothrom, agus táim sásta go bhfuil an méid sin á dhéanamh ag an Aire.

Last night and to-day Deputies have been dealing with the administration of justice under the Minister. I was very pleased to hear so many Deputies pay glowing tributes to the Minister for the manner in which he has conducted the administration of his Department since he took over office. I even heard Deputy O'Donnell pay a tribute to the Minister such as I am sure no other Minister has ever received. He said that when the Minister was a wee boy he nursed him in his arms. It was very encouraging to hear all those nice fairy tales about the Minister in his youthful days. This House, however, is not concerned with the activities of the Minister in his youthful days, but rather with his activities as Minister for Justice and with statements that he has made in this House since he was first elected a member of Dáil Eireann. I am sorry that I cannot see my way to join with other members in throwing laurels at the Minister. Nevertheless, I will express my views on the manner in which, I think, the Minister has discharged his responsible duties. As far as I am concerned, the Minister for Justice is the balance between the people and the State. The Minister is supposed to exercise an honest independent discretion in all cases. He is the balance between the people and the law. As far as I know the Minister, he just signs on the line. I am going to give the House some information that I have been anxious to give it since I was first elected a member. I want to ask the Minister to make a public denial of one serious accusation that I am going to make against him. If he does not deny it, then let him admit it. If he does, I will say that I have done a good day's work.

Since the 23rd June last, when I was first elected to this House, I have been endeavouring to put down questions asking information on this same subject, but as fast as I put them down they were ruled out. I was told that I could raise the matter on the Estimate for the Minister's Department. I hope that the Minister will have the courage of his convictions and either deny the serious allegation that I am going to make against him or admit it. While I cannot pay tribute to the Minister on certain issues, I must definitely say that he has a very good and efficient staff in his office. I have had occasion, time and again, to approach the Minister, his private secretary and others under his control, and as far as the office is concerned I have no complaints to make. I have, however, certain complaints to make as far as the administration of justice is concerned. The first complaint I have to make is in connection with the political prisoners. I cannot for the life of me see why this State should have unfortunate men behind prison bars without trial. If the Minister cannot see his way to release them will he consider establishing a board which will deal with individual cases and report to him as to whether those people should be released or otherwise? I am told that such a board has been established in Northern Ireland and in England: that those who are interned in both places have the right of appeal to have their cases dealt with by an independent board. We have no such appeal board here. We have these poor, unfortunate men simply, I suppose, because of their political outlook, locked up behind prison bars. I say that is a disgrace.

I do not want the House to get the impression that I would be inclined to defend criminals because I would not. I am quite well aware that we must have law and order. Every country must have some law and order, but those men—I refer to the police—whom the Minister has under his charge for the carrying out of this law and order have, on very many occasions, abused the authority they have been given. During the election campaign, and afterwards in this House, the Minister told us that those men have the key in their own hands: that if they want to go out they can. Some of them have been released. I do not see all those political prisoners using the key. As I have said, I can not see why they should be there without trial. Many of them, I believe, are suffering from T.B. as a result of the conditions that exist in the camps in the Curragh and elsewhere.

The Minister has even refused Deputies permission to see them. When I made representations to visit some of my own constituents that are on the Curragh I was refused. I would like to see those people, to talk to them, to see what their state of health is and the conditions under which the Minister and his Department are forcing them to exist during their period of internment. I have been told that a great number of the men released recently by the Minister are definitely carriers of T.B., which they contracted as a result of their term in prison. I believe there are men that he has interned who are definitely suffering from a serious breakdown in health and from T.B. I cannot see why the Minister will not give those individuals the right to have their cases heard in court, or the right to make an appeal to some board in order to secure justice. I know from my own experience that there is any amount of law in this country; we have piles of law, heaps of it, but there is not an ounce of justice in any of that law. There is a terrible difference between law and justice.

Within the past few days I went over the Official Reports and I find that our present Minister for Justice, on the 18th November, 1927, intervened during a discussion on the trial of Edmund O'Reilly, who was charged with the murder of a Civic Guard—the case that Deputy Anthony referred to. We have been asked are we defending the murderers of Civic Guards—the people who appealed for the release of Republican prisoners. I do not think anyone would dream of appealing for the release of any man who was proved to be a murderer, because we are for law and order, but we are appealing on behalf of men who have had no trial; we suggest that they should get a fair trial, the type of trial every citizen is entitled to. On the occasion I have referred to, the Minister said:—

"I think this treatment is intended to break this young man, who is one of the best that ever stood in this country."

That is what the Minister said about an individual who was being tried for murder in 1927. I will go a little further with the quotations. On the 14th March, 1928, the Minister asked for an independent investigation into prison conditions. The Minister has complete control over the prisons now and we merely ask him to do what he wished for in 1928—have an independent investigation into prison conditions.

Deputy Connolly last night raised a very important point when he referred to Portlaoighise Prison. There the prisoners are treated the very same as slaves are treated in darkest Africa. I am quite satisfied they are not being fairly treated and the Minister will not allow myself, Deputy Davin, Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Boland or Deputy Gorry to look into the conditions of the prisoners. We are told that there are prisoners in Portlaoighise who did not hear Mass for the last three years. Who is responsible for that? Is it the Minister's Department? Why does not the Minister, when he is in a position to do it, implement what he demanded in this House on the 14th March, 1928— an investigation into prison conditions?

On the 21st March, 1928, the Minister, dealing with a particular case, said:—

"My friend, Ned O'Reilly—I would not like to hear the Minister call him a criminal, anyhow."

That is the statement the Minister made here. I have known the Minister to refer to political prisoners as criminals. They were never tried and the crime was never proved. They were never brought into court. I will go further in giving quotations from our Minister for Justice. On the 23rd March, 1928, referring probably to the I.R.A., he said:—

"I am convinced that it is the continual hunting down of these men that has kept the organisation going and is still giving reason for carrying it on."

When was that?

On the 23rd March, 1928. The Minister now has an opportunity to let that organisation die out. Now is the time to take the bull by the horns. If you want to keep down a man, arrest him, send Guards to his house, intern him. That is the time that the general public will support him.

You will be here for life, so.

I would not be afraid of a general election in the morning. Those are the statements the Minister made and I put those statements that he made when he was on this side of the House against the statements he makes to-day. On the 7th June, 1928, the Minister spoke about arrests, including the arrest of a lady who was in jail in 1943. He said:—

"The right man is up to answer, a Castle hack."

He was referring to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. He described Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney as a Castle hack. He is a greater Castle hack himself than Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney ever was, and Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney certainly was a Castle hack. I say the Minister is twice as big a one.

The Deputy is going back to 1927-28. The Minister was not in office then.

But he is the same person.

He was not then responsible to the House, and if the Deputy, as alleged, in those days said something about Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, that is no excuse for the Deputy now in possession to repeat it and make similar personal charges.

In other words, Deputy Flanagan should be an improvement on the Minister.

The Minister did not make any such statement.

With all respect, he did.

The Minister did not.

Deputy Boland did.

And now he is a repentant sinner.

He is repentant. Probably the Chair is protecting the Minister——

The Deputy must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it.

The administration of the Department for the past 12 months is the matter under investigation. The Deputy has gone back 16 years.

Am I not in order in referring to the administration of the Department of Justice over the country as a whole?

During the past 12 months, yes.

The Deputy is trying to refresh the Minister's memory.

The Minister's memory does not require refreshing.

Are you sorry for what you said?

I am, for what I called Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, but not for the other matter.

I have done a good day's work so when I got the Minister to do that.

I am sorry for that remark; I remember well the day I said it.

And you said a bit more.

I do not suppose we will have any chance of debating it now, but I will say that we had a different idea of things at that time. Our idea was tried out in our Government's time and it proved a failure and consequently the action taken in our time had to be taken.

Fair enough.

Some time ago the Minister for Justice said there were dangerous criminals in the employment of the Department of Justice. I have here in black and white what the Minister said in this House—that there were dangerous criminals in the employment of the Department of Justice. I wonder are those dangerous criminals still in the service of the Department; and, if not, will the Minister tell us when he got rid of the dangerous criminals? If they are still in the Department the Minister will not have very much to say for his police force. If there were dangerous criminals in the Department since he took over office, and if they have not been put out, then they must still be there. Probably I have refreshed the Minister's memory with regard to statements made by him long ago. I think it is only right for us to have this comparison in order that we may look back upon it. Since you, Sir, in your wisdom, have requested that we should only go back on the past 12 months, it is with great pleasure that I give my experience of the past 12 months.

An occasional reference back is legitimate, but the Deputy for many minutes confined himself to quotations of debates of 16 years ago.

It is not a precedent that they are not allowed.

Within reason.

Mr. Boland

Personally, I have no objection, and I am glad that he has given me an opportunity of withdrawing one statement.

The Deputy may not make history the basis of his speech.

I will not go back as far as I was going. I shall only go back as far as 1941. When going through some old papers, I discovered the report of a case in the Evening Herald of 2/10/41, in which an ex-British soldier or an ex-secretary of the British Legion in Cavan pleaded guilty to having aided and abetted soldiers to desert the Irish Defence Forces and enter another force. The sentence imposed in this case was two months in prison. Two months' imprisonment for using his influence with members of the Irish Army probably to get them sent to the British Army. Side by side with that we have the case of a person charged before the Central Criminal Court with conspiracy to obstruct the Government, receiving ammunition, possession of firearms, etc. This accused person stated in the court that at no time had he conspired against the Government. He swore that he had never conspired against the Government and that he never had firearms to endanger any man's life or property.

Does the Deputy want to try or re-try the case?

The court could draw its own conclusion as to where the stuff was going and how it was being used. This person, although it was not proved against him, got ten years' penal servitude, as reported in the Irish Independent of 22/8/40. The gentleman who succeeded in getting members of the Irish Army into a foreign army only got two months in jail and an Irishman got ten years' penal servitude because he was supposed to have firearms. I cannot see very much justice in that. Probably the court drew its own conclusions. But, from reading the papers, the general public would be under the impression, when such cases are compared, that justice did not go as justice should go. In the Irish Press of the 17th February, 1943, in a square in the front page there appeared the following: “Nearly 13,000 Indian nationalists in jail”. They would want to put 65,000 in jail before the internees would be in the same proportion to the population as our internees here.

I do not intend to make any further reference to the political prisoners except to ask the Minister to consider the establishment of a board so that these men will get an opportunity of proving their innocence, because I am convinced that every man in this country has a right to see that the State gives him a fair and honest trial. I am convinced that these individuals have not got a fair and honest trial and that they have not been sentenced in accordance with justice. I ask the Minister to establish what the British Government and the Ulster Government have established, a board for the purpose of having each internee's case investigated.

I would be very glad if the Minister would indicate the reasons why members of the Gárda Síochána are following around a well-known citizen of this State in Cork—Mr. Joseph Kearney of Youghal. This gentleman appears to be definitely victimised, because every place he goes members of the Gárda are after him. Would the Minister give some information as to why the Guards are continually after this man? What has the Minister up his sleeve, what have the Guards up their sleeve, and what are they following him for? He wrote several times to the Department asking why the Guards were following him, but he does not seem to have got a satisfactory reply and I would be glad if the Minister could give us some information about his case.

Dealing with the Gárda Síochána, I wonder has the Minister or his Department seen a statement published in The Leader, which I understand is edited by a former Minister. The Leader states:—

"It is said that there is a black sheep in every flock. There has never yet been a police force anywhere some odd members of which did not, sooner or later, appear in the dock to answer criminal charges. Therefore, it is not, in itself, alarming that an occasional member of the Civic Guard should leave the straight and narrow path and end up by being sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Nevertheless, it is widely believed that our police force has, in recent years, come to have rather more than the unavoidable minimum number of members who are not quite all that they should be."

The article goes on to say:

"We could, moreover, point to areas in which, to judge merely by appearances, practically every Guard seems to take a good deal too much drink and in which it is common knowledge that in some favoured public houses Guards sit drinking long hours after closing hours."

I wonder did the Minister see that? This paper is edited, I understand, by a former member of this House. We were satisfied many years ago that the Civic Guards would run into a very difficult period when they had been some 15 or 20 years in existence. I wonder has this paper been brought to the notice of the Minister and is he aware of the manner in which members of the Gárda Síochána abuse the authority that is vested in them. I would like the Minister, or the Commissioner, or whoever is responsible for recruiting members of the Gárda Síochána, to give first preference to temperate men. I would nearly go as far as compelling them to be sober men.

That is no evidence that they are intemperate.

I know very well that incidents have taken place, and I am sorry to say that in some areas the Gárdaí are standing around street corners waiting to see who will give them a drink. I have that experience. I must admit that there are other men in the Gárda Síochána who are as satisfactory in the discharge of their duties as any man could meet anywhere. In the County of Laoighis there is a certain sergeant of the Guards who exposed one of the greatest crimes in the history of the county. He was one man who did his duty and did it well. He is a credit to the Gárda Síochána. He discovered that in the County of Laoighis the poor were being badly treated; that they were being robbed, right, left and centre. He did what any good officer of the law should do: he brought on the case, I am told, even against the wishes of the superintendent. That sergeant of the Guards was up against a tough position in his district. A certain prominent Fianna Fáil officer in County Laoighis came down to the village of Clonaslee and said—those are the exact words this gentleman used—"I am after being in Athlone, at an L.D.F. meeting, and I saw Jerry there." That is the way he described the Minister for Justice, he knew him so well. He said he had made arrangements for the transfer of that sergeant of the Civic Guards. That officer was a well-known member of Fianna Fáil in my own constituency. I want the Minister to deny that that man made representations to him about the transfer of the sergeant of the Civic Guards, or else to admit it. Political spite was used against that sergeant of the Guards because he exposed a crime against the poor of that constituency. If I had my way I would give that sergeant promotion, but my information is that the Minister was approached by a member of his own organisation to get him shifted before he would expose anything else. Will the Minister say that he met this gentleman in Athlone—the gentleman who is going around the county giving the impression that he knows "Jerry" so well that he can get the Guards shifted to any part of the country?

The Minister is not responsible for statements made by every such citizen.

I should like the Minister to say whether he met this gentleman, so that I may be in a position to go down to my constituents and say: "That man is telling lies. The Minister stated in the House that he does not know him." I should also like to ask the Minister for Justice, through you, Sir, if the general public are likely to be inspired with confidence in the administration of justice in this State when they see the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, the State solicitor, and the district justice, having "a confab" in the district pending a serious criminal charge? The people are apt to be very suspicious when they see the justice who is going to try the case, the State solicitor and the superintendent of the Civic Guards having a big discussion in a certain Guard's barracks quite convenient to the district. Did the Minister ever inquire as to what they were talking about? He knows about the matter, because I think I have drawn his attention to it already. I made it my business to find out what they were talking about. They were discussing the very case I raised here to-day in connection with the Laoighis County Council. That is what they were talking about. Influence was being used with the district justice by a high officer of the Gárda Síochána. I understand that, as a result of reports made to the Minister for Justice, when the trial came off it was not the judge whom the officer of the Gárda Síochána had tried to influence that was sent down; it was an independent judge. I must give the Minister credit for that.

Mr. Boland

I have to repudiate that suggestion. I knew nothing about that at all. I have nothing to do with what justice tries any case. I cannot allow a statement of that kind to go unchallenged. I certainly did not interfere. I know nothing about what district justices do in the course of their duties.

Did the Minister not hear that on 1st February, 1944, the State solicitor, the local superintendent, and the justice of the local District Court, went into the Mountmellick Guards' barracks? What could the general public think of that when a serious criminal charge was pending? It has definitely been reported——

The Deputy is making grave insinutions against men who might be identified, men who have no chance of refuting his statements.

I can prove my statements.

The Deputy, under privilege, is making serious allegations.

I made them outside the House, too. If an inquiry were held, and if those men were on oath, the statements which I am making here would be borne out. Influence was used to try to cloak a criminal charge. If the people are to have confidence in the administration of justice I think the Minister will have to carry out a good deal of tightening up in his Department. I remember during the election campaign when I went into a certain town in County Laoighis, representations were made to the Minister by, I am told, a well known banker in this country. I was one of the men who signed a communication sent to this banker, accusing bankers and other gentlemen of being responsible for unemployment, poverty, and emigration, by their corrupt banking system. I am told that that banker wrote a letter to our illustrious Minister saying: "Please give me protection against those gentlemen." Immediately, the Minister took up the case with the Gárda Síochána in the district concerned and, just as I had attended the funeral of a neighbour in Mountmellick, I had the Guards down to me to make a statement. The Minister for Justice had come along to give this banker protection. What protection did the banker need in regard to hearing the truth? Did the Minister see the communication which I addressed to the banker? If he saw it, or if he read it, perhaps he will indicate to the House why he should issue instructions to the Gárda Síochána to take statements from the individuals who signed that document. The Minister and the banker knew quite well that the document was not of a very serious nature, that we only told the truth in it, but we see how quickly the Minister took up all the weapons of the Department of Justice to defend Sir John Keane.

One other matter which I want to deal with is whether the Minister's Department have received any report as to a man with eight young children having lately been thrown out of his employment with Columbia Pictures Corporation, Ltd., Dublin; whether representations have been made from any quarter about the manner in which this gentleman was forced to become one of the unemployed; and whether he is aware that the gentleman who stepped into his shoes the following morning was none other than Mr. Jay, alias Jacobs?

Would the Deputy explain how that concerns the Minister for Justice?

One moment, Sir. I am informed that this gentleman is a deserter from the British Army, and I am asking the Minister what steps he proposes to take to have this gentleman deported from this country.

It has nothing to do with the Minister for Justice.

It has nothing to do with the Minister's Department?

He cannot send him to Jerusalem now.

He could get him out of this country, anyhow. So far as I can see, too much of this Jewish control has been allowed, when we see a Jew stepping in to take the bread——

The matter does not arise.

I have got my point in. I want to refer now to a meeting which I addressed during the election campaign in the town of Mountrath. I went down to that part of my constituency as a candidate during the last election and the Gárda Síochána canvassed tooth and nail against me. Is the Minister aware of that? The Minister then says that there are no politics in the Gárda Síochána. I am told that a member of the Gárda sent an interrupter to break up my meeting.

And he could not.

He could not. When this disturber came to create annoyance at the meeting, I asked a member of the Gárda who was standing at the corner what steps he was going to take to remove the interrupter and to ensure freedom of speech to every candidate. That Civic Guard never took his back away from the wall—he just laughed. The sergeant of the Guards in Mountrath then came up, and as a man who knew his duty, immediately removed the interrupter, and I believe gave the Guard "the works" for not doing so.

He was canvassing for you.

I placed these facts before the Minister and gave the Minister proof of strong political influence having been used against me by members of the Gárda Síochána, but the Minister did not seem to be worried about it, and no action whatever was taken. The Minister said on one occasion in this House: "We want to see that everybody gets freedom of speech," and I think that if Dáil Éireann is the democratic institution it should be, every person, no matter what his political outlook may be, should be allowed to express his views. The Minister once referred to the I.R.A. and asked why that organisation did not come out in public, place its cards on the table and put its views before the people. I must admit that I had no connection with the I.R.A., and yet because I came out in public, and in a democratic manner put my views before the people, I was hounded around the country by the Minister's touts, the Gárda Síochána. The Minister in reply to a Parliamentary Question recently said that he was not prepared to interfere with the action taken by the Guards. Does the Minister know that the circular which was issued requesting members of the Gárda Síochána to attend my meetings was not issued by the chief superintendent, but that advantage was taken of the absence, through illness or otherwise, of the chief superintendent by a political adventurer, the superintendent——

The Deputy will withdraw that description. He is not entitled to abuse men in that fashion who have no chance of replying. He is abusing the privileges of the House.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. Is the Minister aware that the gentleman responsible for the issuing of that circular was a well-known supporter of the Government? I understand that when this individual had complete control, in the absence of a decent man, the chief superintendent, he took a mean advantage of the position and sent his circular around. The Minister has not taken any steps to withdraw that order, and, what is more, says that he will not do so. He further said that there would be no need for the order if Deputy Flanagan used language which was suitable. I want to know what language I used that was not suitable. It may have been strong, but I am convinced that the Minister, in his day, used stronger language than any I ever used. We had a member of this House who went so far as to advocate war for this country. He was allowed to go scot free. I wonder do any Guards or other members of the force attend Deputy Dillon's meetings in his constituency.

That does not arise.

I am merely making a comparison.

It does not arise, and the Deputy will not be able to say later that he got away with the point, in spite of the Chair. It does not arise and will not be pursued further.

With all due respect, Sir, I think that the attendance of the Gárda at my meetings does arise.

The Deputy was not referring to that, but to a Deputy, Deputy Dillon, who made a speech in this House quite within his rights.

I should say that when I go down to address my constituents I am quite within my rights. Every Deputy who goes to his constituency has a right to put his views —no matter what they may be, and whether they are in the estimation of the Minister right or wrong—before the people. How can the Minister say that Dáil Eireann is a democratic institution when he will not allow candidates to express their honest views in public? I would be pleased if the Minister would see his way to withdraw the circular. If he does not, I might as well be quite frank and say that I do not care, because my meetings will go on just the same. I cannot for the life of me, however, see why the taxpayers of the counties I represent should bear the expense involved in driving these plainclothes men in motor cars to the different places at which I hold my meetings, while I have to cycle to my meetings.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy knows quite well that they cycle.

They do not; they have a car, and I have the number of the car here.

Mr. Boland

The position is that they cycle.

The Minister is trying to back out of it now, but the taxpayers of Offaly will not stand for any more of this squandermania. It is most unfair that a Deputy should be prohibited from expressing his views.

Before concluding, I wish to make reference to the censorship of letters. Deputy Davin, my colleague from Laoighis-Offaly, made reference to that last night. Certain documents are being censored at the present time and the information is being used for political purposes. I am sure Deputy Davin could prove that. I know cases of it in the city. Communications are coming to me as a responsible Deputy —whether I am responsible or irresponsible, I am representing the constituency; that is a matter for the intelligence of the electorate—and, assuming that my correspondence is opened, is it not a nice thing that the information coming from my closest supporters will be put at the disposal of those who canvassed against me in the constituency? How is that to react against me, if such is the case?

The Minister is instructing these men, and I would like information as to the procedure in regard to the censorship of internal correspondence. Who is the principal censor dealing with such correspondence? What is the procedure followed? On whose instructions is correspondence opened? Of course, the Minister gives the instructions, but we would like to hear a little more about it. These charges are of a very serious nature, and the Minister would be wise to clear the air when he is replying. I join in the statement made by Deputy Davin last night, that the information is definitely used for political purposes.

I would appeal to the Minister to see that members of the Gárda Síochána are provided with houses in the different areas. In every town where we have a Gárda barracks with five or six members of the force, the State should provide suitable accommodation. They should not have those men looking for and getting houses from county managers which were intended for labouring men. It is an appalling state of affairs to see Gárdaí living in houses erected by local authorities and see the labouring men entitled to them under the various Acts deprived of them. It is the duty of the State to see that houses are provided for the Gárdaí.

Deputies have referred to late dances and drinking at dances. I must admit that I never danced a step in my life and do not intend to do so. I never go to dances, except perhaps an odd social function to which I get an invitation. At the same time, I am satisfied that dances are ideal recreation for rural areas. I am not opposed to the late hours, but I am definitely opposed to the drinking at dances. I will be glad to see the Minister introduce legislation to prohibit the granting, at any district court, of a licence for a bar at any dance. I have seen young men neglecting their work, and even neglecting their religious duties, because of dances the night before, when they were under the influence of drink.

It is a shame that certain dance halls should be conducted in that way. It is all right to go to a dance for amusement, but no such thing as drink should be allowed—I am one hundred per cent. opposed to it. I am sure no one would object to a mineral bar, to teas or lemonade refreshments; but I strongly oppose the ordinary bars at all-night dances. In regard to the long hours, I do not care if the dances go on all night, nor do I think the Minister should worry about that. It would be much better to see the young people amuse themselves in a dance hall than that they should be out in the hedges afterwards.

In regard to film censorship, I have seen some films shown here which are one hundred per cent. anti-national and make a laugh and a skit of the Irish people. Many of these British productions to which we all flock, thinking we will hear The Lakes of Killarney or Galway Bay—which do not make a skit of the “wild Irish”—are very damaging to youth. There should be a different performance—something of an educational nature—for children, instead of showing them how to draw a gun. Some special pictures should be provided for the young folk.

I would like to know if the Minister has jurisdiction over courthouses. I understand that, through the District Court clerk, the courthouses are looked after by the Minister's Department. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, at a meeting of Laoighis County Council, some time ago it was proposed, seconded and adopted unanimously that, on the day of each meeting of the council, the National Flag be flown from the County Courthouse, Port Laoighise. The resolution was sent to the Department of Justice and the secretary of the county council has since made representations on the matter, but no reply has been given. We have been told that the letter was sent to the county registrar. I have also been informed that the county registrar objected to the National Flag being flown from Laoighis County Council offices on the day of the council's meetings. It is a strange state of affairs if we have our own native Irish Government prohibiting the display of the National Flag. I would be glad if the Minister would look into that matter, to see if he got the resolution and if the reply the county registrar gave was as I have stated. I must admit that I did not propose the resolution, but I have been asked by other members of the council to draw the Minister's attention to it.

I received a letter this morning from Westmeath and I must pass it over to some of the Westmeath Deputies. It says:

"I am a Civic Guard's wife, and on behalf of the womenfolk I am making a special appeal to you. I wonder would you ever raise the matter of the Guard's weekly pay at the first opportunity in the Dáil. It is impossible to believe what the effect of the present monthly pay has on the married members of the force. You see we have to wait 31 days for our pay, and then the last part of it goes into the grocer's book when we get it. On every item he enters 3d. or 4d."

I will not continue to read it further. Probably there is a lot in the contents of that letter. It comes from the wife of a Civic Guard in the County Westmeath. I do not propose to disclose the name. I wonder would it be possible for the Minister to arrange weekly pay for the members of the Gárda Síochána? Probably it would be a great inconvenience in the Department, but if it is practicable or possible, I wonder would he consider it? We know that at the present time it is very inconvenient for the housewife to get groceries and the other provisions to keep the house going, and then when the month's cheque comes in to find that the greater part of it has to go to pay the grocer's bill. I would be glad if the Minister could arrange, if not to make the payments weekly at least to make them fortnightly. During the emergency we all know that a man wants his week's pay at the end of his week's labour. Could the Minister see his way to do something not for the sake of the Civic Guards themselves but for the sake of their wives and families? On this occasion I do not propose to say anything further on the Estimate.

I have made some very grave statements here in connection with the transfer of a sergeant at Clonaslee in the County Laoighis. I hope to be in the House when the Minister is replying to see if he will deny speaking to this Fianna Fáil henchman who knows him so well that he calls him "Jerry." Why, even Deputy O'Donnell who had the Minister in his arms when he was a little boy would not go that far. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say about this gentleman in the Fianna Fáil organisation who was at the convention in Athlone where he said that he had met "Jerry" and would arrange for the transfer of the sergeant. That makes a bad impression on the public. I would be glad if the Minister would take the opportunity of dealing with that.

The Deputy has said that three times already in my hearing.

With all respect I was afraid that the Minister might forget it. I would also like to hear what reference the Minister has to make to the police order.

We had some sensible speeches on this Estimate and some very sloppy ones also. We cannot ignore the background of history in this country during the past 20 years and leave any loophole for gunmen who think they are going to have a good time here. Thanks to the courage of the Minister for Justice, we have fairly decent peaceable conditions at the moment. Some of those gentlemen have found that it is not a paying proposition to defy the law. We had some "molly coddle" speeches about the poor unfortunate men who, we were told, are locked behind prison bars. We were not, however, told about the many lonely graves that there are all over the country, of superintendents and other members of the Gárda, as well as the many honest decent citizens who were foully done to death by members of this organisation. I know very well that there are some innocent men behind prison bars. The innocent suffer with the guilty. If there is any man behind prison bars on the Curragh there is nothing to prevent him being released. It rests with himself.

I think there is great room for constitutional republicanism in this country. I have always held the opinion that things will never be right until we have a healthy constitutional republican party in the country. This country will never be at peace until the Six Counties have been restored to the motherland. In my opinion, we must have clean, healthy, constitutional republicanism. The Minister's strong and firm attitude has forced those men away from the gun and has brought them on to the platform. If they come on the platform as honest, decent men and put a proper programme before the people, I will be prepared to speak from the same platform with them myself. But, when speaking about them, I would like to see fair play all round.

I knew many grand young men who were in the Guards—superintendents and others—who were foully done to death. I know the circumstances in which their widows and children or their mothers were left. When an appeal is made to release men something ought to be said about the many lonely graves that there are all over the countryside. It is my belief that it is not the I.R.A. who are a danger in this country but the flood of money that is coming in through Nazi-ism and Communism. There is not the slightest doubt but that the kind of work that has gone on here during the last six or eight years has been fostered and fed by the flood of money that has been coming in from Russia and Germany. Our young fellows fell for that money and did the dirty work for those nations. At the present moment there is great need to find out what is the position with regard to Communism in this country. Is it a fact that there are live active cells ready and eager for the day when they can do the foul work that they have done in other countries? I have it on fairly good authority that there is in this House an active member of the Communist Party. I think that the Irish people, whatever their past, were false to the true traditions of Ireland when they elected an avowed Communist, an anti-God who was trained in Russia in all the dirty anti-God——

Every Deputy elected to the Dáil has the same rights and standing as his fellow Deputies.

I would like to expose this to the country.

That is the constitutional position.

That is the real danger that I see in this country. In a debate last night a good many speakers referred to the harm done by the pictures and the dance halls. I think that Deputy Linehan struck the nail on the head when he said that there are two major problems before this country: one its economic condition and the other the lack of parental control. It is perfectly true to say that you require sound economic conditions to provide houses and work for our people at constant wages. I hold with Deputy Linehan that it is not the Guards or any other institution that is going to put our people on the right track. You need parental control to do that. There is far too much laxity in many homes. You have too many young people falling by the wayside, and the cause of that in many cases is that they did not get a good whipping in their early days. If some young girls see others going around with blackened eyebrows and red on their lips and walking the streets late at night, they must follow their example. Their parents should exercise more control over them. If they got a good whipping when they did anything wrong it would help to correct many of the things that Deputies have complained of.

Think of the way the teachers of the country are handicapped. If a teacher, in the exercise of his rightful duty, spanks a schoolboy then, as Deputy Linehan said, the parents will be off to take out a summons against him and he is brought into court. The result of that is, teachers are inclined to take the line of least resistance and will not slap young fellows when they deserve it. As regards the Civic Guards, I hold that we have a magnificent force in this country. I am not going to say that it is as good a force as it was four or five years ago. It is, however, the mainstay of peace in the country. At the moment it may be a lackadaisical force. I do not blame the members of it for that. They have many grievances and feel very sore over them. At the moment the Guards have to play second fiddle to other organisations. I hold that unless the Guards are regarded as the superior and over-all force in this country, we cannot expect law and order to be enforced as it should be. I do not believe in this thing of having military or semi-military organisations taking over control from the police. At the present time the police would appear to have no duties. They are more or less like messenger boys to other organisations and that is unfair.

I know some good sergeants, men who suffered in prison camps, and they told me their grievances. They were asked to go to a lecture hall and give lectures on detective duties and how to detect crime to men who they knew were criminals and robbers. I am sorry to say that some of these men are members of the L.S.F. I regard that force as a brilliant and patriotic force. But to ask a sergeant or superintendent of the Gárda to give lectures to men who, to their knowledge, are potential criminals, is very unfair. Any men who are to be passed as super-detectives should be selected for their character and ability to go straight. It is very unfair to ask the Guards to play second fiddle to any organisation.

I hold that Gárda duties are not being carried out in the same manner as in other years. I am aware that the Guards are willing to do their duty, to patrol the country and protect the property of the people and try to put down crime, but at the present time they are merely messenger boys. I suggest that the L.S.F. be taken away from the duties of Civic Guards and allow the Guards to carry out their duties as of old. That is a great cause of trouble among the Gárda to-day.

Another important matter is the provision of suitable housing for married Gárda. This matter has been delayed unnecessarily. There is no question about it, the Gárdaí must be properly housed. Some scheme should be devised so that suitable houses will be erected convenient to the barracks. I know many Guards who are obliged to live down old lanes and boreens in thatched houses, somewhat like wigwams, because they cannot get a decent house convenient to the barracks. It is about time we gave them proper housing facilities. They should be within easy reach of the barracks in case they are needed during the night. The Minister cannot expect the police to be attentive to their duties if they are obliged to live in country lanes in houses little better than wigwams.

We have heard a good deal about drunkenness. There is a fair amount of drinking, but that has happened in every period of Irish history. When money is plentiful, drink will be taken, perhaps, to excess, but I was horrified to hear Deputy Cafferky saying that it was something appalling to observe the drinking that is going on in Mayo. He said that the people there were absolutely drunken and sodden, and that there was one case of a father, mother and youngsters of 14 and 15 years getting drunk. That is a terrible accusation and, if it is a fact, what will become of my county, where hundreds of migrants from Mayo are arriving day after day? I hold that the men who came from Mayo in the past were decent, hardworking, sober men, but if those who are left in Mayo are the drunken, sodden lot that Deputy Cafferky said, then God save us from them. I hope that other Deputies from Mayo will take part in this debate and will either support or deny that statement. It is a terrible accusation, and if Ireland is in the wretched, degrading position that a man cannot cross the road without staggering from drink, then God save us from ourselves.

I agree there is a great deal of petty larceny. There are many small thefts all over the country, and it is very hard to detect the criminals. If the Guards were allowed to carry out their duties as in the past this type of crime would cease. The Guards cannot carry out their duties because they are too much restricted. We regard the Guards as the custodians of the people, and it is upon them we depend for freedom from crime. You will always have a crime wave in every country when there is a war on and when money is plentiful. The crime wave here will ease off when money is less plentiful.

I think the Deputy misquoted me. What I said was that the only occasion I ever had to hang my head when outside this country was when I came in contact with a drunken Irishman. By that statement I did not suggest that all Irishmen who leave this country are drunkards. In making that statement I was asking the Minister to consider the question of allowing drink to be sold at dance halls, and I suggested that by doing so he is endangering the peace. I am surprised at Deputy Giles trying to misinterpret my statement and suggest that I said that Irishmen as a whole are drunkards. I said no such thing, and the Deputy knows that very well, but he has taken a rotten opportunity deliberately to try to misinterpret my statement, knowing that I had no intention of saying anything like that. The Deputy should look up the official report and see what I did say.

I am not going to withdraw anything I said. I mentioned the plain, blunt truth.

I did not say that.

I may not have quoted the exact words, but anyone listening to the Deputy would think we were a drunken lot and nothing more.

I did not make that statement.

You said that in the publichouses or in the dance halls a father, mother and children were drinking together. I do not believe the country is as bad as that. It is a shame to make such a statement.

You are talking a lot of "boloney!"

I know there is a certain type of man who can get money handy, and who will act the dandy, drinking cocktails and everything he can get. He will go to the dances and he will not have the courtesy to ask a girl to dance; he will pull her out, or haul her away from another fellow. It is not the duty of the Guards to deal with that type of thing. That is a case where civic responsibility comes in. A decent, hardy Irishman would give that type of fellow a crack on the jaw. I have seen it done. That type of drunken lout will go 20 or 30 miles to a dance, and he will be there Sunday after Sunday, and as long as he is allowed to get away with it he will do the dirty on everybody, but I know of some cases where he ran up against stone walls—and he never forgot it.

There is too much crawling and cringing and too much cowardice. There are men looking at criminals stealing bicycle tyres, stealing poultry out of farmers' yards, but they are too cowardly to go to the police court or give evidence. If Irishmen and Irishwomen were prepared to give evidence all this wave of crime would come to an end. After 700 years of toil and trouble we have a free country with free administration and justice. What are we afraid of? What are we crawling and cringing for?

We have heard the cry here to-day: "Let out the poor devils who are behind bars, the fellows who have done nothing." All over the country there are hundreds of green graves containing the rotting bodies of young men who fought a good fight. Let us remember what they sacrificed their lives for. Let us do our duty in a manly fashion, even if we have to die in the attempt. Let us have clean, healthy administration. Let us stand shoulder to shoulder in an Ireland free from shore to shore. Let us do our utmost to get out of the mess we find ourselves in to-day.

I am more or less forced to my feet by the last speaker because of references he made to migrants from my county coming to County Meath in connection with references which were made to drunkenness in the County Mayo yesterday evening by Deputy Cafferky. I think that in debates of this kind there should be some element of truth in statements made by Deputies who hold that they have some responsibility as Deputies. I cannot see the wisdom of Deputies putting on the records of this House, which are there for all time, and which are there to be quoted in foreign newspapers against the Irish, statements that would give the impression all over the world that the man in the West of Ireland is the Playboy of the Western World, the usual typical drunkard that enemies of Ireland would like to think he is. It is a recorded fact that there is less drunkenness in Aran than ever before. It is also a recorded fact that the consumption of drink has gone down considerably in recent years. It is also a recorded fact that in our courts there are less prosecutions for drunkenness than there have been for quite a long time. I think there is a lower record of prosecutions for drunkenness than ever before. When that is the case, I regret very much that Deputy Cafferky gave the impression by his statements in this House that in Mayo, in particular, drunkenness has been the order of the day, or rather that drinking has been the order of the day.

That is a deliberate misrepresentation of my statement and you know it. You have spoken an untruth. You are deliberately misrepresenting the statement that I made. You are acting like a scoundrel as you have done since the first day you were elected to this House.

The statement that boys of 12 and 14 drink at public bars with their parents in Mayo is a disgraceful statement and is untrue.

I do not think he said that.

Actually these are his words.

What he did say was that they were there while their parents were drinking.

I will read the words:—

"Boys from 12 to 14 years are drinking at public bars with their parents ..."

I will accept it, if you like, that Deputy Cafferky might not have actually said that boys were drinking, but he continued to say——

He was talking about the bad example of parents.

The words are these:—

"Boys from 12 to 14 years are drinking at public bars with their parents, and is it any wonder that they continue to drink when they come to the age of 16, 17 and 18 because, when they see their fathers and mothers doing it, they think it is the wise and good thing to do?"

Is that taken from the Official Report?

I think it should not go on the record except it is.

Yes, it is from the Official Report.

My recollection is that the Deputy said that the fathers and mothers were accompanied by these young people of 12 and 14 years, but that these children were not drinking and, unless it is a copy of the Official Report, I do not want the Deputy to misinterpret the statement.

I put it in as an exact copy. In case I might be accused of misconstruing it, I went to the trouble, which Deputies are entitled to do, to put myself right on the matter. Even if the Deputy wanted to convey that boys only accompanied their parents while they were drinking, I say that it is not the practice in Mayo for fathers and mothers to drink at public bars. It should not go on the records of this House that that is the practice, because the records of this House will be used by a certain organisation in this country that wants to create the impression that our social order here is bad, that we are not a decent people, and that the present Government or any Government that is not the Government of that particular international organisation is not a fit Government to rule in this country. I want to protest strongly against Deputy Cafferky's being made the tool of any other Deputy or any organisation in this country to put abroad statements of that kind that are absolutely incorrect. Mothers in Mayo do not drink at public bars. Boys of 14 in Mayo do not drink at public bars. I will exclude that if you like. But why should the Deputy say that boys of 16, 17 and 18 continue that practice, and that, because they see their parents drinking, they think it the wise thing to do?

The Deputy also complained that publichouses are open on Sunday evenings and that groups of boys go from them to the dance halls. The Guards do their duty in Mayo, as far as I can find out. There have been very few prosecutions for brawls in dance halls. The Deputy also stated that outside dance halls you are in danger of being hit with stones. He said that you could not know who the culprit was. Mayo is not a place for brawls. Its record has been good. Many of the boys who attend dances there are in the Defence Forces and they know how to conduct themselves. I also want to say that when Mayo boys go abroad nobody need be ashamed to meet them. They have got into very prominent posts in England and have carried themselves well.

There are no more misfits amongst the young men and women of Mayo who go abroad and have to come back again than amongst the people of any other county or nation. It is only because I did not want that statement to go on the records of this House without contradiction that I stood up to refer to it. The Deputy in question should not make these statements, because they are untrue. He should not be urged to make them by any other body for use elsewhere. Deputy Giles was perfectly right in stating that, if that were the condition of things in Mayo, Mayo migrants should no longer be sent to the County Meath to carry on their brawls there. In a previous debate, also, statements were made that the Mayo migrants were responsible for illegitimate children in homes in England, and that these had to be paid for out of the English Exchequer. I think that this slandering of Mayo men who go abroad should not be indulged in here, because these things are not true.

Notwithstanding the statements made that crime is on the increase, I think that, taking world conditions as they are and the disturbed minds of people, of youth in particular, we are a wonderfully peaceful country at present. It has been stated here by men of experience that, because of the terrible situation throughout the world and the callousness that goes with war, crime is bound to enter into the minds of people to a greater extent than before. Any increase of crime is due to the restlessness in the world. Taking that into consideration, I think we are wonderfully free from crime, especially petty crime that people hope to get away with. The proceedings in our courts are proof of that. I do not know what the police reports are, but I take it the police are doing their duty in trying to detect and prevent crime. Therefore, I think the Minister and the Department and the people are to be congratulated. I think that any statements to the contrary should not be made here for the purpose, I may say, of having them used by a certain organisation elsewhere to try to smash the morale of the people who want law and order here, despite what was said by a Deputy a few moments ago when speaking against the Minister, the Department and the Government.

In regard to recruitment to the Guards, Deputy Cogan thought that the standard should be raised. I do not at all agree with that. I suggest that the standard of education should be lowered, that is, as far as secondary and university education is concerned. To my mind, the pupil who has done five years in a secondary school, or the man who has done a year or two in a university or even qualified for a degree there, is not the best type of man to become an ordinary member of the Gárda Síochána. Men have applied for those posts time and again because they could get no post that would suit them. They applied to become members of the Gárda Síochána and passed the test on their educational qualifications. They are fine types of men, but in accepting that post they feel it is beneath them. They never have their hearts and souls in police work. Sometimes they run into debt. In my experience, they become bad members of the Gárda Síochána, and bring lesser men from an educational point of view into disgrace. The best type of Guard in this country is the small farmer's or labourer's son who has got a good primary education.

And without a competent knowledge of Irish either—an Irishman without a competent knowledge of Irish. Do not forget that.

A man with a good primary education has a good competent knowledge of Irish, and when he becomes a member of the Gárda Síochána he does not feel that the job is beneath him. He has a pride in his work, and he is a very good limb of the law. I think the Department would make a grave mistake in going in for the highly qualified men from an educational point of view without taking into consideration that the man who is highly qualified educationally feels that the job is beneath him. He is there on sufferance, and for that reason does not give to his work the attention that he should give to it.

About the force as a whole, I believe there is more laxity now than there was heretofore. I believe there is, but it is due to the duplication of forces if you like. Duties of various kinds are divided up amongst the L.D.F. and other members of the forces. I think that is a mistake. I think the police should be the rigid enforcers of the law, and that only in a very extreme case should their duties be handed over to any other body. I also believe that economy could be effected by reducing the number of barracks in certain backward parts of the country. The Minister could very well close down a number of small barracks. There is a greater public spirit now than heretofore. There is not a backwood village in the country in which you have not members of the L.D.F. prepared to assist in seeing that the law is carried out. They have become first-class trained citizens and are ready to enforce the law. There is no need to have a Guards' barracks in those districts, and I think an economy could be effected in that direction. Therefore, if the Minister has any economies in mind, he might consider that some of those barracks might well be closed down, leaving it to the sensible people of the countryside not to give way to pressure from criminals or allow crime to be committed without giving any information in their possession to the proper authorities.

There are one or two points which I should like to put to the Minister in connection with his Estimates. Before going into those matters, there was one point raised by Deputy Flanagan at the end of his remarks to-day with which I would like to be associated. That is where he quoted from a letter from the wife of a member of the Gárda Síochána requesting that payments to members of the force might be made at more frequent intervals.

Mr. Boland

I have got a note on that matter since. I find that two payments monthly were tried out, and the Guards themselves were not satisfied and were prepared to go back to the monthly payments.

Certainly any number of them have complained that they are driven more and more to living on credit, and I have always understood that those associated with the Department of Justice are definitely against anything that would drive members of the force to living on credit.

Mr. Boland

That is so.

Certain people feel that by getting the Guards to run up bills in their establishments they get a certain amount of pressure and strength which they can exercise for their own purposes. I would ask the Minister to relieve the members of the Guards, who must be very definitely feeling the pinch at the moment. The cost of living has gone up for them, as well as for everyone else, by 70 per cent. As far as the cost-of-living bonus is concerned it alleviates that 70 per cent. increase on their old wages by about 10 per cent. They are still very badly handicapped when one remembers the old purchasing power of their money.

With regard to this matter which has been discussed by many speakers, the question of political internees, I have not troubled the Minister very much on that matter, and I hope never to have very much to do with him in that connection. I did have one representation made to him in one case. That man was released, but there is one small matter which I have already mentioned—the Minister can get the details from his advisers—incidental to the release. The person in question was not I think ever suspected of being active in the sense of doing any harm to any man with a weapon. He was supposed to have been an inciter, but whatever was the strength of the case against him the Minister, on examination, apparently decided that he would be lenient with him. He was let out. But here is what I cannot understand about it: That man had no way of earning his living—he was physically disabled—except by some sort of hack journalism. His typewriter was taken from him and has not been returned. I think it is somewhat anomalous to have a man released as being fit to be let loose on the citizens of this country, but to retain from him his means of livelihood. I expect there is some reason why that has been done, and the Minister might inquire into the matter.

With regard to those people generally, I was amazed last night to hear that the Minister had released 300 of them in the last year. I would urge the Minister that, in respect of those people more particularly than in the case of any one else, it is not only required that justice should be done but that there should be a definite appearance of the fullest justice being done to them. This country has had bitter experiences, and there are very few people in the country at the moment who would back publicly those who decide that they can use physical force against the citizens of the State. Nobody is going to stand for that sort of thing at all, but there is an uneasy feeling in the minds of certain people—I have shared it myself from time to time—that the vast powers with which the Minister has been armed are very liable to abuse. I am not saying that they are being abused, but there are people who have their suspicions about that matter, and the Minister would be well advised to take every possible opportunity not merely of explaining to the people his mind on the matter but explaining how the individual cases of those people who are still interned have been dealt with. There is a lot of talk as to whether or not there are boards to look into the cases of those men. If any of those men are detained under the Offences Against the State Act of course there is a board to which he can apply. If they are detained under the Emergency Powers Act, that is a different matter. I do not know whether the whole 209 are interned——

Mr. Boland

They are interned under the Emergency Powers Act.

Then the situation is that they have not immediately at their disposal any statutory board to which they can appeal?

Mr. Boland

That is so.

Therefore, they are entirely dependent on what may be the opinion of the Minister in view of the information given to him by his advisers as to the changed mental attitude of those people.

Mr. Boland

There was a board, but it was considered unsatisfactory. The matter was discussed at the Defence Conference, and it was decided to drop it.

I am sure there are good reasons for that, but I suggest that they might be explained. I am sure the Minister has learned from his experience in the Department that all through the run of history men's minds have been exercised in trying to find some way of preventing the natural corruption that power tends to bring in the human fabric, and the way that is generally done is by all this system of checks and balances that the law has established.

At the moment, we are in that situation in which the Minister has been given extraordinary powers. He said, last night, that he had been given them because of certain troubles in the country. I do not think that is so. He was given them under the 1937 Constitution, I suggest, on arguments which have not stood the test of practical experience since the Constitution was passed. Special courts may be set up. It was understood, when the matter was being discussed in connection with the Constitution, that if these special courts were to be set up, there would be a form of court, not a lay body, which would determine what were the circumstances in which these special courts should be established. In any event, the Minister got powers and got them for peace time—not for the emergency alone. The Minister has power under the second edition of the Offences Against the State Act to put people in jail when he likes. That, roughly, is the position.

Mr. Boland

A state of emergency must be declared.

I know, but that is a simple matter.

Mr. Boland

Even in peace-time?

Even in peace-time, but in peace-time, apart altogether from this war emergency we are in, the Minister, by getting an emergency declared by the Government, a political body, can thereafter simply sign a Schedule which is affixed to one of the Acts. There is no going wrong about it, unless the Minister fills in his own name as the person to be interned, instead of as the signatory. That is the only mistake that could be made in the warrant. All the old cases we knew of about warrants being wrong and points of detail being picked out have gone. The Minister has such a formula at the back of the Act, and all he has to do is to put his signature to it, and he can send people to jail indefinitely.

That is possibly a power which is required. History has shown that the worst people in any country are those who make use of Constitutional matters to overthrow the Constitution, who prepare their plans for an armed rising against the Constitution under the guise of the Constitution. The 1937 Constitution, undoubtedly, armed the Minister against that sort of nonsense. With regard to that, it is a pity that at this stage people can be found in this House still, even with reservations and some without reservations, to try to justify the use of armed force. On account of the circumstances in which the State emerged, there was a pretty evil tradition established with regard to the use of physical force. I have my views that that should have stopped on a certain date, and the Minister will hold that, after a particular date, no attempt at physical force could be justified. Our dates may disagree.

In any event, as a result of two political Parties having had experience of office, there is now a pretty healthy opinion in this country against the use of physical force, and it is a desperate thing that, even in this debate last night, people should be found to seek, even with some reservations, to pretend to justify force, and to justify it on the ground that, when force is used against people, they may be driven to the use of force themselves. That argument reverses the truth. The truth is that when people have attempted to use physical force, the force of the law comes down upon them, but I think a few words by the Minister would not be out of place in indicating that, even with regard to these 209 persons, opportunities are taken when they occur to have their cases reviewed, to have the files gone into and to have some association with people which will give them every chance of escaping from evil associations. If these people are banded together in a particular internment camp, they are all going to be pretty much under the supervision of the others, and it may be hard for a man who wants to leave the association—I am not speaking of an organisation, but of associates— to get a chance of disclosing his mind. I understand that the Minister gives these men every chance.

Mr. Boland

Every chance.

Very well. The Minister said with regard to these people that they will stay there until the emergency is over and probably for some time after it.

Mr. Boland

The majority of them.

I take that as meaning that they represent the hard core of the physical force system in the country.

Mr. Boland

That is my opinion.

The Minister will get all the support he wants from this side, so long as that is the situation and so long as he can make it clear to us that he is not being obtuse in regard to any appeal made in connection with a change of mind on the part of these people.

The Minister last night—it may have been simply due to the heat of interjection of debate—objected rather vehemently to some remark as to whether he himself might not be prejudiced with regard to some of these people.

Mr. Boland

I did not quite hear what was said, but I thought the particular Deputy was accusing me.

The remark was made, and I want to make a point on it. The Minister immediately afterwards accepted with equanimity the suggestion that some of his advisers might have hostile associations or a background which might make them hostile.

Mr. Boland

I admitted that it could happen.

If the Minister repudiates the idea that he is prejudiced, on the basis of having tried to clear his mind of any of the old-time associations with regard to these people, of having impartially considered their cases and now feels that he is not in any way prejudiced against them, I will accept it from him, but I did think it was rather odd of him so strongly to repudiate the suggestion that he might be prejudiced and to accept that some of his advisers, associates or someone down the line might have particular prejudices. The Minister would admit that if prejudices were anywhere they probably were with these people, but I should imagine that when the Minister says he is not prejudiced, it means that he has gone through a particular phase, that he has judged these things impartially and has taken the most objective view that he can of them.

Mr. Boland

I hope so.

I trust so, and I have no reason at all to believe the contrary. That is the situation with regard to these people, and in so far as there are 200, and only 200, under detention at the moment, I think it is a great situation. In the height of this war, when people who were inclined to be antagonistic to the best interests of the country had such open opportunities for mischief and with all the tension surrounding a recent period, to have only a couple of hundred still detained is a matter upon which we can congratulate ourselves.

It is also a matter for congratulation that 300 were released last year. I gathered from the Minister's retorts to various people that he is not at all satisfied that the whole of the 300 have kept faith with him, but I understand that, numerically, there are not very many who have broken faith, although his interjection made me feel that he was a bit doubtful of the strength of the opposition of certain of the small number who have gone back, so to speak, on the faith which they had pledged. That is all I want to say on that, except to urge that the Minister will take the opportunity of indicating to the House that cases get the fullest consideration, and that if any man shows that he has turned to a new path the Minister releases him and hopes for the best. I hope that he does not neglect a little supervision at the same time.

It is the secondary part of this matter which causes me anxiety. The courts are crammed with criminals at the moment. Deputy Ó Cléirigh said that we ought to congratulate ourselves that crime is only at the point at which we have it. I think we are in a shockingly bad condition. The best the Minister could say in his opening statement was that we had stabilised crime at a very high point, at double what it was four years ago. I think he said that the number of indictable offences had more or less doubled in four years.

Mr. Boland

That is so.

It is lamentable that we should have that situation, and I am not sure that simply getting judges to sentence men to terms of imprisonment is the solitary means to be adopted against that particular set of circumstances. I am worried rather more by this position: We have our ordinary courts presided over by judges appointed under the Constitution, with all the fortification there is to judges of being impartially appointed and put beyond the reach of any prejudice by the manner in which they are appointed, and in addition we have these special courts presided over by people who can be changed at any moment. They are not people who must be appointed under the Constitution, or subject to the restrictions in the Constitution.

I find myself, in reading the accounts of cases in the newspapers, wondering what is the line of principle which determines whether a case goes before the special courts or the ordinary courts of the country. At one time, I thought that what were called serious black-marketing cases went before the special courts, but then I saw, within the same month, cases in connection with petrol coupons going to the special courts and some going to the ordinary courts.

Mr. Boland

The Attorney-General decides that.

I know, but surely there is matter for the administration of justice in connection with it. I agree that the Attorney-General has a very big say in the whole matter, but I am quite certain that the Attorney-General can have representations made to him with regard to particular cases and with regard to, say, the abuse of the special courts; but the public, or the small fraction of the public whom I meet, are a little anxious about this overworking of the special courts. There are any number of cases in which it seems to us people might have been paraded before the ordinary juries of the country and in respect of which we could have depended on the juries to give justice. I can see one excuse, but I do not know that it is one which the Minister would like to give, that is, that the ordinary courts are so crammed that the special courts are taking part of the burden of this tremendous outbreak of crime in the country. In any event, I do suggest that the use of the special courts has been overdone and there is no real line of principle in relation to the type of case which we see from time to time appearing before the special court, when the ordinary criminal courts under the Constitution are open for the trial of these people. The ordinary criminal courts set up under the Constitution are open for the trial of those cases. The Minister might help in that matter by stating what percentage of the prosecutions for indictable offences come before the special courts as opposed to the ordinary courts. Is the percentage growing in recent years? Is there a bigger percentage, so to speak? In any event, there must be a bigger number of these cases coming before the criminal courts, as the crime cases have doubled. The statistics would show whether the courts are getting the increasing number. I understood that the use of the special courts under the Act was to be confined to cases in which the ordinary administration of the law had broken down. Applying that rule, there is really no case for the special courts at all. I do not think the Minister in the last three or four years could say that the ordinary courts have broken down. He gave one instance of an attempt at shooting and wounding one witness.

Mr. Boland

That was last year.

Yes. I do not think the Minister can indicate a solitary example of a solitary district justice having been prevented from holding his court by any process of intimidation. If that is the case—and I suggest it is—the Minister has to justify the use of these special courts. It must be remembered that the courts are composed of people not appointed under the Constitution and that all the fortification the citizen is supposed to get from the background of the courts is gone.

And the rules of evidence were suspended.

The rules of evidence may have been suspended, too, but as far as the special court is concerned——

Mr. Boland

They are not suspended in the special courts.

Without any disrespect to the personnel of those courts, I must say that cases are being taken in that way before people not accustomed to the rules of evidence, who do not know the strict application of the rules of evidence as it is known in the ordinary courts. Therefore, people who go before a special court may be subjected to a much more severe type of control than those who go before the courts appointed under the Constitution. There are certain other courts in which the rules of evidence may be set aside entirely— it depends on the court and on the special circumstances.

There is one other matter which causes anxiety. The Minister might answer by some statistics. Statistics were asked for yesterday, but the Minister said it would take too much time and effort to get them.

Mr. Boland

I said I was prepared to get them if the Deputy insisted.

Deputy Hughes?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

The research might have been magnified beyond what is proper by the way in which the Deputy put the question. Could the Minister not answer easily enough, by giving an estimate of the number of cases in which remissions have been made by himself or by the Government of penalties imposed by the courts?

Mr. Boland

I gave that.

The Minister gave it for certain years.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy wanted the percentage of reductions of fines.

Reductions of fines or sentences of imprisonment. I want to get the number of cases in which the Minister or his Department interfered with the decision of the court.

Mr. Boland

I gave the Deputy that. He wanted the details segregated.

I do not want them segregated.

Mr. Boland

Then he got the information.

Is it a big percentage of the cases?

Mr. Boland

I think in about 140 cases. I will get the Deputy the figure.

I do not want to tend towards any anti-racial feeling in the country at all, but there is a suspicion in the city that people of a certain religion or of a certain race are more favoured in respect of these remissions than other people.

Mr. Boland

There is no truth in that.

If the Minister says that is not so——

Mr. Boland

There is no truth whatever in that.

There is that suspicion.

Mr. Boland

I know that.

I am very glad to hear the Minister now state clearly and precisely that there is no truth in that suggestion.

Mr. Boland

None whatever.

I feel very disturbed over this question of the outbreak of crime. Deputy Cleary has, I suggest, a completely wrong view of the situation. He said, first of all, that we are to be congratulated that, with all the turmoil in the world and with all the upsetting of standards, we have only got to the point we have reached. The point we have gone to is that the indictable offences have doubled. Here we are, in a bit of a backwater, as far as the ordinary currents of world thoughts are concerned. We pride ourselves on being a Christian country as well as an agricultural country—we use the two slogans— and we are supposed to be protected more by our religion than a great many other communities. We adhere strongly to Christian tradition, yet at this particular period crime has doubled in four years.

At the same time, there is an outbreak of a sort of kill-joy spirit, given expression to in this House. Listening to some of the speeches, one would think that all the vice in the country can be traced back to either cinemas or dances. Dances are a proper form of amusement and are, in the main, properly used. There is a commercialised type of dance hall, to cope with which various efforts have been made, without any great success, unfortunately. There can be, and frequently has been, abuse of drinking.

I have occasionally been—more often than I want to be—in a District Court, when I saw Guards solemnly sworn, in a sort of chorus, and then saw a lot of unfortunate youngsters being paraded for playing football in the streets. The district justice's time and the time of a certain number of Guards was taken up and young people and their parents were all brought in to answer to the charges and to pay small fines, because the youngsters were kicking football in the streets. I sometimes wish I may live to see the day when a decent healthy-minded district justice will adjourn his court and go out to see the places where those youngsters kick football and have a game with them. I have known people fined for playing football in streets where there was no traffic at all likely to bring them into danger and where the street was so wide and the houses so definitely set back from the street that it was almost beyond the strength of the youngsters playing with the bit of a ball to do any damage whatever to property.

The other side of that picture must be shown. I can only place this particular matter in a very small percentage of the cases I have heard talked of. I have known people brought up from areas I know of and where the people in charge of the city playgrounds have made no provision for the young people to get any amusement anywhere in the neighbourhood. These youngsters are driven to the streets, those healthy young boys have some little bit of animal spirit and, God knows, they are innocent enough if all they do is to kick a ball about the streets.

Has the Deputy ever considered the statistics of children fatally injured?

I know of certain places where there is no traffic.

Mr. Boland

They would follow a ball under a car.

I am talking of back streets and side streets—streets where the appearance of a car would be noticed. I am talking of things that have happened in the last three or four years.

Mr. Boland

I have seen children rush into the road after a ball, right under a car.

I know enough about the ordinary courts to know that that sort of thing occurs. There are these other cases. In any event that is one part of this problem of the juvenile delinquent. What are you going to do with these lads? Are they not going to be allowed to amuse themselves? If no playing fields are provided for them they must amuse themselves somehow. Amongst the district justices dealing with those cases there is great humanity. When boys are paraded before them in court a small fine is imposed. If the lad does not appear a heavier fine is imposed. Some of the lads that I have seen around the courts seemed rather glad to have the day from school.

Deputy Dillon, as is his habit on these occasions when dealing with this matter of the juvenile delinquent, was very eloquent and sincere. The Minister has been asked to visit various places—the prisons, Civic Guards' barracks and so on. I wonder if he has ever visited a District Court, particularly when young people are up and seen the sort of atmosphere that is there? The atmosphere is such that one feels the boy has now got into a position in which there is really no saving him. There used to be the old criminal test of subjecting people to ordeal by fire, and later the test of water. In the case of certain crimes people were pitched into a lake. If they escaped it was a sign that they had certain supernatural and magical powers, and then they were destroyed. If they sank it was a very clear proof that they were innocent. That is how one feels about some of those children who come into the courts. If they are put into prison one wonders what their associations there are going to be. Unfortunately, it is very easy for a boy to take a wrong turning at a particular point. It may be that he will be chastened by his experiences and will set himself right or that he may become a little bit of a gangster hero and will take the wrong turning.

The part of the judiciary that comes in contact with those juvenile offenders have the feeling, I think, that they are not doing much good simply by listening to a sordid story and then imposing such punishment as seems to fit the offence. I do not think they believe they are doing as much good as they do, say, with the hardened criminal. If they cannot reform him at least they will try to preserve society from him. The juvenile offender is an entirely different matter.

Most judicial people who come in contact with those juveniles are rather saddened and heartbroken by the fact that the only resources that this civilisation of ours can offer is to establish people who will rule according to certain rules on the cases that come before them. None of them feel, I think, that any great good is being done. Appeals have been made to the Minister for the appointment of more probation officers. It is considered that a little more expenditure under that heading would produce better results. I know that the Minister may be advised that the people who speak about more probation officers are really first-class cranks in the community. Some of those at any rate are people of brains and capacity as far as social conditions are concerned. They think that some other way than the brutal business of sending young people to jail might be adopted to effect reforms. I have heard some of these people say that if there is anything wrong about various matters you see the Government jumping in. The appointment of warble fly inspectors is one example. The Government can find money for warble fly inspectors, but it will not add to the six probation officers in the Dublin courts. That indicates the stingy outlook they have in the matter of reform. The Department of Finance appears to block every effort made in the way of correction or prevention especially in this matter of juvenile crime.

Deputy Connolly spoke with great feeling on this matter. Many people have been thinking over this juvenile problem and looking out for a better solution of it, one that would regard the juvenile delinquent as more a matter for psychological observation and analysis, for the attachment to him of a doctor instead of a police officer. People are thinking along the lines that if you could dig down into the mind of the juvenile delinquent you would get a response. As Deputy Dillon said, there may be something crabbed in a fellow's nature which has made him an object of scorn amongst his fellows. He reacts to that and becomes a bit of an enemy of the people around him. Many people are thinking that if you could give those lads a healthier outlook you might make something out of them. If the Minister ever had the experience—I do not wish to suggest for a moment that he ever had—of finding someone related to him who had fallen foul of the law as a juvenile and of being pushed off on a sentence, he would have a very much better appreciation of this problem than he will ever get from reading statistics with regard to crime.

I feel that I am talking to a person who is sympathetically disposed but who, for the last 10 or 12 years, must have felt the overwhelming power of the Department of Finance. He is probably tired of butting his head against the immovable people who control finance. I suggest to him that he would get the approval of this House if he made a further attack on them— in this time of great extravagance in spending—for some additional expenditure on the part of the State in an attempt to save people from going wrong or to reform them instead of going on with this brutal business of pushing them into jail.

There is one other matter that I want to refer to. It did not arise last year but I can raise it hypothetically. I asked before, in connection with the officers of judicial institutions in this country, whether any thought had been given to that provision in the Constitution which says that judges are not eligible to hold any other office or position of emolument. I raised this before when a particular judicial person had got from the State a licence which certainly gave him profit and emolument. I was told I think by the present Minister that the matter had been enquired into, and that the legal advice was that the licence given to him by the Minister's colleague could not be withheld. Some time or another somebody is going to have to make a decision on what the words "any other office or position of emolument" cover. It is, of course, open to the Minister to put up regulations of his own in respect of people who are appointed to judicial office. I stress these words because they will be repeated with regard to other people; we repeat them with regard to the President of the country and they are repeated with regard to the appointment of a new Comptroller and Auditor-General.

When this matter was before the House on a previous occasion I raised the point whether it was not highly undesirable that a judicial person should be enabled to get a licence for a premises and have a licensed premises run in his name. I gathered that it might not be desirable, but it was not prohibited by the Constitution. There is only one actual case in which that occurred. The Minister is entitled to make his and the Government's point of view clear with regard to what profits other than judicial or other salaries people of this type will get.

We made an appointment yesterday. That person is not a judicial person, but he is put on the footing of a judicial person as far as the Consituation is concerned. I do not think it is desirable that any of these highly-placed officers should have any source of emolument other than their salaries. There is a considerable difficulty in applying that rigidly. If people invest their money, they are entitled to some return. Supposing a person buys out a concern—I am not speaking of an actual case—he is entitled to draw the whole of the profits of that concern.

I think what we are aiming at in the Constitution has been entirely broken or departed from. I think what was back of that phrase when introducing the Constitution was that you wanted to put a person in a way that he would always be able to judge himself objectively and without partiality. The way you achieve that is to say that this person will have no touch with the outer world, as it were; he will have his money in one way only, so that in the event of cases coming before him nobody can say that he was prejudiced because of his association with a particular company or a particular type of emolument, or was in a special type of business whereby his judgment might be perverted.

This matter will arise from time to time. It has arisen in the case of a judge who is no longer a judge. It will arise with regard to others, and it will arise with regard to other appointments. I suggest to the Minister that it is about time somebody gave an authoritative interpretation of what is in the Constitution. The Government are entitled to put further restrictions than those set out in the Constitution on certain people and I think the Minister should make the point clear as to what his position will be with regard to people who hold any other office or position or any post from which they can get emoluments.

I have referred to the emergency bonus. It represents a 10 per cent. addition to the salaries of certain officials. The cost of living has gone up to 70 per cent. The Guards have got an alleviation to the extent of 10 per cent. and to that degree they are better off than others. I do not know if it has occurred to people, when they are considering the increase in crime, to associate that with the economic conditions under which numbers of people are expected to live in the country. There is an Article in the Constitution which deals with the family. We regard the family as a natural, primary and fundamental group of society.

It is rather noticeable that in this Constitution, having made that pious expression of our attitude, which is following out the Christian condition with regard to the antecedent rights of the family as a unit, we separate it from the Article dealing with private property. The encyclical from which that particular paragraph is copied goes on to refer to the obligation to pay a family wage. Can it be said that the majority of the Guards, even with the 10 per cent. emergency bonus, are getting a family wage? That, of course, is one of the things that is contrary to the spirit if not of the special encyclical, certainly to the tenor of encyclicals generally, because the tenor is that the parents in charge of the family should be looked to, in the matter of the family wage and its provision, and not the benefaction of the State. In any event, the Minister surely ought to face his responsibilities in connection with the people who are expected to set standards with regard to law and order. We know from the Estimates what is given to the ordinary rank and file of the Guards. The Minister ought to consider that matter seriously.

He must have given hours of thought to the outbreak of crime. I think that he associated the outbreak of crime with a number of articles that are in short supply. He said the vast increase in crime in the country, the larceny and housebreaking, might be associated with articles in short supply. Is there not another factor to be considered? The people who are getting small wages find that they have to count their pounds as worth so many 11 shillings, and yet they are expected to keep up the same standard of life. That is more likely to be the cause of people breaking out into the larceny of goods than merely that certain articles are in short supply.

If the Minister wants some radical reform in this country, he will have to move outside his own Department. He might depict for the Government the very sad situation the country is brought to through the failure of certain colleagues of his. I imagine that if the Minister will get in touch with people on the judicial bench he will find corroboration of what I say, and that is, that it is the desperate straits to which people are driven by the fact that the pound has such a small purchasing power that is the greatest cause of the increased crime. I doubt if the Minister will see any betterment of that situation, apart from the world movement of ideas outside. The Minister will see that as long as this country is compelled to live in the shockingly degraded conditions under which the vast majority are obliged to live at the moment there cannot be any improvement. I have asked and pleaded that the people with the small money should have their situation better regarded.

I move to another group now. Judges are, amongst the people in the country, a group specially singled out. They are the people who have adopted this attitude—that they should be put beyond all reach of temptation in the carrying out of their independent office by having themselves put on a particular salary scale in which they will enjoy amenities of life. Judicial salaries were fixed many years ago. They are worth about half now what they were when fixed. It was very often hard to get people who were in a good way of practice even to accept the old rate of judicial emolument. It was not so much the rate of pay was the incentive, it was more the fact that when a man was retired from the judicial bench he had a very good pension. Both salary and bonus are to be weighed in the light of the present run of prices, and not merely in the light of the present run of prices but with some idea of what prices will fix themselves at in the post-war period. I think that as a special group the judicial people should be singled out for better treatment. Amongst other things, I think a judge is entitled to say that he has attained a particular office, that he has been picked out for that, and that he ought to have certain privileges amongst them the capacity to be able to provide better for his children in the way of education and everything else than other people who have not been picked out for the same attainments that he has. Judicial people can say that they are in an exceptional position. I think it would be part of the duty of the Minister if he wants to keep the courts in the position in which he found them—nobody will accuse me of saying that the judges have lapsed from their high standards because of the impact of prices on the particular salaries they receive—to give some consideration to that matter, and that the level of judicial salaries ought to be raised higher—at least it ought to be put at the point where what judges get is able to buy more or less what it used to buy. That would mean a considerable increase in the actual monies they get.

There are just three or four points which I should like to stress. The first is with regard to those people of whom Deputy Dillon gave a pretty fair account yesterday. They have become a great nuisance in the West lately. The Minister for Justice I think will get co-operation from the local Gárda in dealing with them. On a recent occasion they created pandemonium in Ballaghaderreen. It took the Gárda and the Local Defence Force to rout them out of the town. It is a common practice with them to let in their horses and asses into a farmer's field. That would not be very serious at the present time, but it could be very serious in the autumn when the corn crops would be ripe. On one occasion I saw 80 asses put into one field. If you turn 80 asses into a cornfield for a night, you can imagine what the result will be. The Department should take some steps to try to check these liberties which these people seem anxious to take.

With regard to dances, about which a good deal has been said, I have not seen any abuses in my town, and we have a great many dances there. That may be due to the fact that licences for bars have not been sought for these dances. Generally, an energetic and representative committee runs these dances, and they are being carried out very creditably. There have not been any disgraceful scenes that I am aware of.

I should also like to take this opportunity of paying a compliment to the Gárda in Roscommon and in every other county that I happened to go through during the recent election. I came across a great number of them in the various districts in Roscommon and in some of the adjoining counties, and I must say that they carried out their duties very impartially. With regard to recruiting for the Gárda, I agree with a good deal of what Deputy Ó Cléirigh said. Deputy Ó Cléirigh, however, seemed to think that Deputy Cogan had a different point of view. I discussed the matter with Deputy Cogan, and his point of view and Deputy Ó Cléirigh's are somewhat similar. Deputy Cogan suggested that the standard of education for recruits would want to be higher, but he informs me that what he meant by that was that in a couple of years there will be a large number of Guards retiring from the Force and that for a pretty large number of Guards to be eligible for the position of officer it will be necessary that a large percentage of them should have a pretty high standard of education. Outside of that, I think it must be recognised that both the R.I.C. and the Gárda were recruited from the middle-class farming and labouring community, and that both forces proved to be satisfactory. As they are reared in the country and lead an open-air life they are the people who are the most suitable for recruits. They are of a hardy nature and are generally of strong physique, and I think they are really the most suitable people for the position. As I say, these two forces were recruited largely from that class of people and, as that has been so successful, I think it should be continued. I know there has been a growing feeling in the country for some time that the ordinary farmer's son who has only received an ordinary national school education has no chance of getting into the Gárda. A great many of them have not applied, because they felt they would have no chance against those who had a secondary education and who, as Deputy Ó Cléirigh said, applied to become members of the Gárda because they cannot get some other position. I should like the Minister to give us his point of view on that matter, so that young boys in the country could know whether they were eligible or not. If the ordinary national school education is not considered a sufficiently high standard, there is no use putting them to the expense and trouble of applying.

There is just one other point with regard to the prisoners. I never believed in physical force and I do not believe in it at present. We should congratulate ourselves on the fact that comparative peace has been restored to us. I think it was last June that there was prolonged discussion on those matters. I was one of those who suggested at that time that it would be useful if a committee representative of every Party in the House were appointed to visit those prisoners. At the time, if I remember rightly, various complaints were made by the prisoners that they were being treated badly. The Minister for Justice told us that they were not, and Deputies were not in a position to get first-hand information. If they had that first-hand information they could go down to their constituencies and point out that they had definite information that things were as good as could reasonably be expected.

With great respect, I suggest to the Minister that he should consider that matter again. He has told us something like 300 have been released, and no grave happenings have resulted. If this committee were appointed, it would be able to assure the House, and Deputies in turn could assure their constituents, that everything possible was being done, and that those people, as the Minister said, have the key in their own pockets if they wish to avail of it. Those are the only points I wish to raise. The larger questions have been dealt with more efficiently than I could have hoped to do.

I agree with other speakers that we have every reason to congratulate ourselves on the efficiency of the Civic Guards. People are sometimes inclined to think that the Civic Guards are not sufficiently efficient; they forget that a certain amount of responsibility rests upon the ordinary citizen as far as giving assistance to the Guards is concerned. I think it will be admitted by every decent-minded man in the country that our Civic Guard force is a credit to everybody concerned. The Government and the country have reason to be proud of it.

I would suggest to the Minister that something should be done about providing proper housing accommodation for members of the Force. In many cases they find it very difficult to procure suitable accommodation. That applies particularly to members with large families. I think that the Department should ensure that suitable accommodation, adjacent to the barrack, will be made available for them. I would also suggest that, particularly in the case of married members of the Guards, it would be a good thing if the Minister could see his way to pay their salaries every two weeks. It is difficult, especially in view of the great increases in prices, to budget over a four weeks' period, and it would be a very definite convenience to the household if payment of salary were made every two weeks.

I would also suggest that, particularly in country areas, the Sunday closing regulations should not be strictly enforced. After a very hard week's work, I think a man is entitled to a few pints on a Sunday, and the Civic Guards should be instructed by the Minister for Justice not to be too hard on those country men who like to get a drink after Mass on Sundays. They should get at least an hour or so to get a well earned refreshment after the week. I would ask the Minister to instruct the Guards to close their eyes to small things that might happen during that period.

I do not think licences should be allowed for bars in dance halls. I do not object to dances, not even to all night dances, but I do object to having a bar on the premises. Parents throughout the country have a real objection to allowing their sons and daughters—particularly their daughters—to attend dance halls which have a bar attached. Only too often we hear of deplorable incidents in such halls, and I think it is demoralising to the youth of the country that such state of affairs should exist. As I said, I have no objection to dances. They are a great source of entertainment to boys and girls. They cannot be expected to spend all their time at home. They have a right to their legitimate amusements. We are living in a modern world, and I think nobody will deny them that right. I would ask the Minister to see to it that licences for bars in dance halls are not allowed in any circumstances.

I have listened to Deputies attacking dance halls, picture houses and travelling people on the roads. Those travelling people buy donkeys from small farmers in the district, and in the course of their journeys at the present time they do very useful work making galvanised buckets, when buckets are not to be had in the hardware shops. They are not as dangerous as certain speakers made them out to be. They are human beings and they have to live. They have their own way of living and I do not see why attacks should be made upon them from all sides. They are living in their own way and they never interfere with others. They may brawl amongst themselves, but they never interfere with anyone outside their own circles. Every one of us must make a living—we are not all lucky—and I think it is very unfair that all Parties should be attacking these people. They are horse dealers and many farmers buy horses from them. They are very useful for the farmers. They go down to Cork and buy donkeys which they sell to people around County Wexford, to cottage people and others who want donkeys. It is very hard to get them, and, but for these people, they would not be available. They go to Connemara and buy ponies. They are not all beggars —some of them are wealthy men.

There is one matter which no Deputy dwelt on sufficiently, that is, the position of poor people who go out gathering firing in the form of a few bits of sticks. These people are brought to the District Court and fined 40/-. Some of them are unemployed men, and that is an outrageous fine to impose on an unemployed man or a poor woman for gathering sticks to light a fire during the bad times through which we are passing. The Minister should instruct district justices not to be too hard on these poor people.

The Deputy is asking the Minister to interfere with the administration of the courts of justice.

The Minister could use his good offices all the same. With regard to what has been said about dances, all parties run dances. The Labour Party, the L.D.F. and various other people run dances, and I suggest that the hours of 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. are not suitable, because it often happens that people are put out at 4 o'clock in the morning and cannot get into the places where they work. It is a bad hour to turn out boys and girls when they cannot get into the places where they are employed. It would be better if the dances went on until 7 a.m. and I say that as one who often goes to dances.

We have had references to the prisoners, and I should like to see all the prisoners released. I have here the name of a man arrested on 5th December, 1942, and released on 4th June, 1943—Séamus Ó Ceallaigh, 23 Laoighis Road, Cabra. This poor young man has the use of only one hand and his typewriter, his only means of making a living, was taken from him and is at present held by the authorities. I ask the Minister to restore it to this young man, who told me that it is his only means of livelihood.

With regard to district justices and black-marketing cases, I remember the case of a woman in Wexford who was fined £5 in connection with the sale of a box of matches. That was a very heavy penalty to impose in such a case because black-marketing is going on all over the country. Deputies have spoken about pictures, but fewer people will go to the pictures now, owing to the electricity restrictions, and I do not think it is right for Deputies to condemn amusements, because these amusements provide revenue for the Government. In attending picture-houses, dog-tracks and so on, we are paying a certain amount in taxation to the Government, and if we do away with the little sport going on in the country at present we will have very little amusement.

There has also been reference to drinking in dance halls, but I never saw a bar in a dance hall in my own town of Enniscorthy. I have been out at dances in the country and I saw no bars there either. I do not know where these bars are used, but dancing is going on all over the City of Dublin, and, when one leaves this House, one meets ladies and gentlemen going to dance halls in the city and it is probably to these dance halls that Deputies were referring. I see none of this wholesale drinking in County Wexford, and I was surprised to hear some of the West of Ireland Deputies giving their own constituencies such a bad name. I would not like to do it for my constituency, because if they see that going on, they must take part in it themselves. I have been at as many dances as Deputy Cafferky or other Deputies, and I see none of this drinking going on, in County Wexford, anyhow.

Finally, I ask the Minister to restore to Seamus O Ceallaigh, of Cabra, the typewriter which is his only means of livelihood. I do not think the Government need be afraid of a disabled man. I know some of the young men from my own town who were released. What happened to them? There was no work for them. They could not get to England to work, and they had to join the Air Force. That is where some of these poor young fellows who were put into internment camps without trial have ended up—in the British Army.

The first matter I want to raise is the matter of prison reform. We have operated as a separate political entity for the past 20 years, and, in the main, we simply administered a system of prison regulations which we inherited on the change of Government. It is perfectly true that certain minor administrative and executive reforms have been carried out in the meantime, but no really serious attempt has been made to study our methods of detention, our prison regulations, or the conditions under which prisoners are detained, or to endeavour to effect any kind of reformation from the standpoint of the prisoner, whether he be a veteran prisoner or just an occasional miscreant. One of the most objectionable features of our present prison code is that we commit young persons—mere youths and adolescents —to mix in prison with incorrigible offenders who know every artifice of the prison, know every trick in the criminal code and who, in idle moments in prison, are quite capable of imparting to youthful and accidental offenders many of the tricks which they have learned in a long life of crime.

I understand there are no regulations at present for segregating youthful offenders from the more hardened type of criminal. I do not think it is calculated to induce reformation, so far as the young person is concerned, by permitting any association whatever between the relatively youthful prisoner and the person who, apparently, has decided to embark on a course of crime and in respect of whom no methods of reformation are likely to be effective. I think it is the experience of persons responsible for dealing with prisons that any association whatever between the youthful offender and the incorrigible criminal is likely to result in the youthful offender being taught new and very vicious methods.

There should be an examination of the whole prison regulations, to ensure that youthful offenders—I do not mean mere boys of 17 and 18, but those up to 22 and 23 years of age—should not be permitted to have any intercourse with the more hardened type of criminal whose methods, habits and knowledge present one of the greatest possible problems to those charged with prison administration. If prison is to act as a deterrent on youthful prisoners, or even on the adult prisoner who has fallen for the first time, it is essential that in our prison administration we should recognise by a different method of treatment and by a different code of regulations that the first offender or the youthful prisoner is viewed differently by the State to the manner in which the inveterate offender is viewed.

In that connection, one of the blanks in our whole prison code is the fact, that at present it merely exists for the purpose of detaining persons who have broken the law, and no effort whatever is made to use the prison service or prison code to impart education or vocational training to those who, unfortunately, have lapsed and are compelled on that account to spend a long period of incarceration. Many of the prisoners sentenced to long terms of imprisonment spend their time in the kitchen, or on the farm—if there is a farm attached—or in the laundry or garden, or doing the thousand and one routine things to be done in prison. No attempt, however, is made to plumb the depths of mind of the prisoner, no real endeavour is made to point out to the prisoner the evil effects which inevitably follow any embarkation on a course of wrong-doing. No serious attempt is made to woo a prisoner away from the criminal path. The whole purpose of our prison regulations seems to be merely to detain people, to treat them there with all the rigour inseparably associated with prison life, and no effort whatever is made, so far as I can see, to wean them away from the path of crime and induce them to take a new, a healthier and a more idealistic view of citizenship.

To be effective at all, our prison code must endeavour to make psychological examination of prisoners. Many of the persons who break the law are persons who up to then have been excellent citizens and against whom no charge of want of rectitude could be levelled. Many of them have been guilty of isolated lapses, due often to environment, to personal association with other persons, to want of proper appreciation at the time the offence was committed, or to want of an accurate sense of wrong-doing. It is important, if there is to be respect for the law, that efforts be made to effect some psychological reform in such persons.

We have now had 22 years' experience of our present prison code. From statistics, nobody would pretend to believe that the existence of our prisons or of our criminal code is such as to induce people to avoid prisons. Statistics show that, apart from political crime, the state of ordinary crime is alarming and something with which those interested in the welfare of the State cannot be in any way pleased. For the past 22 years, prison has been, in the main, just a place of detention, with all that kind of brutalising and blighting influence which goes with rigorous prison life. I recognise, of course, that prison life cannot be a kind of garden tea-party. There must be restrictions and the wrongdoer must be punished. I prefer to believe, however, that there is a much better dividend for the State, in the long run, if prisoners can be weaned away from the criminal path.

The time has now arrived when the Minister or the Government might usefully set up a commission of inquiry into our prison service, methods and procedure and into our criminal code so far as detention is concerned. The commission might consist of persons who, while wanting to mark disapproval of wrongdoing, will also recognise that the main purpose of prison life should be to woo the evildoer back to the path of virtue. Unless our prison service results in humanising people and teaches those incarcerated the benefits of being physically, morally and educationally elevated, the whole purpose of prisons will be defeated. Instead of being merely a place of detention, the prison should be a place of correction. There is nothing in our present service to indicate that that matter is receiving the attention and consideration it should receive at the hands of those responsible.

If prison is to be just a memory of rigorous treatment so far as the prisoner is concerned, and merely leaves an influence on the prisoner that his period in prison was accompanied by very rigorous hardship and often brutalising treatment, our detention of persons fails completely to achieve its real purpose, namely, to effect reform in the prisoner and induce him to go back to the path of virtue.

I suggest, therefore, to the Minister that, having had experience of our prison administration during the past 22 years, some steps should now be taken to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the operation of the whole prison service with a view to effecting such reforms as are likely to have a much better effect on prisoners than the present service has. As I have said, crime statistics do not show that prison is a deterrent so far as prisoners are concerned. It is a noticeable feature of our prison administration that no real effort whatever is made to inculcate any love of high virtue on the part of prisoners or to look after a prisoner once he has been discharged from prison custody. I hope, therefore, that the present Minister who, I think, is sympathetically disposed in a matter of this kind, will be able to see his way to set up a commission of inquiry so that we may evolve a prison code something different from the code which we have inherited. The prison code which we are administering to-day is simply the code which we inherited with this difference, that the code which we inherited in 1921 or 1922 has undergone many useful reforms so far as Britain is concerned. We, however, cling to the worst aspects of that code. In Britain a new type of prison is being erected. It is a considerable advance on anything that we have got here. They have new and better methods for dealing with prisoners in Britain, and a much more serious effort is made to educate prisoners in Britain than there is here. Our whole prison methods are confined to a mere detention of the prisoner. No effort whatever is made to impart any education to the prisoner such as might be calculated to bring him back to the path of rectitude.

On this Estimate I want to raise the question of the administration of the Gárda Compensation Act of 1941. When passed, its purpose in the main was to deal with a situation which had arisen out of the murder of Gárdaí throughout the country in 1940 and in earlier years. When the 1941 Act was going through the House, I think the Minister gave an assurance that the claims of the next-of-kin of Gárdaí who had lost their lives prior to the 1st January, 1940, and who were not covered by the retrospective provisions of the 1941 Act, would be sympathetically reviewed. I understand that efforts have since been made to secure a review of the cases of the next-of-kin of Gárdaí who lost their lives prior to the 1st January, 1940. But although every possible effort has been made to induce the Minister to review these cases in accordance with what, I think, was an implied assurance in 1941, so far not a single one of them has been reviewed with any beneficial effects, so far as the next-of-kin of deceased Gárdaí are concerned. The position prior to the 1st January, 1940—that is prior to the effective date of the 1941 Act—in the case of a Gárda who was murdered or lost his life because of the malicious intent of other persons, was that an action on the part of the next-of-kin could not succeed unless the next-of-kin were in a position to prove that there was personal malice against the Gárda who was murdered or against the Gárda who was maimed and seriously injured. A number of cases were brought before the courts prior to the 1st January, 1940. In these cases efforts were made to establish that the circumstances of the Gárda's death were such as to justify the substantiation of a claim for the payment of a certain scale of compensation, but, because of the difficulty of proving personal malice against the deceased Gárda, practically all these cases failed. Certainly, large numbers of them were lost, and the next-of-kin were placed in the unfortunate position that not only did they get no compensation but they were privileged to pay the costs of an unsuccessful legal action.

As I see it, the obvious purpose of the 1941 Act—I think the Minister indicated that it was so at the time—was to remedy a flaw in the legislation which was operative prior to the introduction of that measure, and to give the next-of-kin of members of the Gárda Síochána who lost their lives through malice or physical violence in the course of the execution of their duty the opportunity of going before the courts and claiming such compensation as the courts believed that they were entitled to. The Gárdaí at that time believed that the Act would be generously interpreted by the courts and that in its interpretation what are described as Lord Campbell's scales of benefit would be made operative so far as scales of compensation were concerned. Since the 1941 Act became law a number of claims for compensation have been brought before the courts, but the result of them has only served to disillusion the members of the Gárda force because they now see that the presentation of claims under the 1941 Act, which was intended, I think, to remedy the flaws in the pre-1941 legislation, has only served to place Guards in as bad, if not in a worse position, than they were in prior to 1941.

Since the 1941 Act was passed, a number of claims for compensation have been brought by the next-of-kin of Gárdaí who were murdered or of those who were seriously injured in the course of their duties. The maximum award in death cases has been the sum of £650. I suggest to the Minister that an award of that sort is completely at variance with the spirit in which the 1941 Act was conceived and completely contrary to the spirit in which it was passed by the Dáil. My recollection of the discussions on the 1941 Act convinces me that, so far as the House is concerned, it was genuinely anxious that the dependents of any Guard who lost his life in the execution of his duty on behalf of the whole community should be generously treated by the legislature and generously treated by the courts. The results of the cases which have so far come before the courts do not in any way indicate that there has been a generous interpretation of the legislation passed by this House. Although the 1941 Act was introduced for the purpose of remedying flaws in the pre-1941 legislation and of providing fair compensation for the dependents of the Gárda Síochána who lost their lives in the execution of their duty, the Gárdaí are now in the position in which if they have the choice of being shot to pieces in the execution of their duty or of being knocked down by a motor car, it is much better for them to be knocked down by a motor car than to be shot to death in the execution of their duty. Suppose a criminal sets out to raid a bank, holds up a Guard and says to him: "I will shoot you to death or, if you like, you can fall under the motor car that is coming along and let me into the bank; if you do I will not shoot you." If the Guard were to enter into negotiations with the criminal and say: "All right; you get into the bank and I will fall under the motor car," the Guard's family would be better off by his falling under the motor car than by attempting to disarm the person who was about to rob the bank. I do not think our legislation ever contemplated a situation of that kind, but that is the fact and that is the result of the legislation which we have passed.

The fixation of compensation in the vicinity of a sum of £650 by the High Courts in recent cases, and upheld by the Supreme Court, means that if a Guard feels he is going out on a very dangerous job which is likely to result in his death, it is better for him to be knocked down by a motor car than to attempt to defend the property of the State or the lives of the citizens. I suggest that is a situation which was never envisaged when the 1941 Act was introduced. It is completely contrary to the spirit in which the Act was passed and it calls for immediate remedy if we are not to continue to inflict serious injury on those who are the custodians of law and order in this country.

Bad and all as that situation is, it is really worse when you follow the interpretation of the law by the courts in a recent case. It has been decided in a case in which a detective-sergeant lost his life that the awards made by the court are subject to this condition, that they must be governed by the value of the assets held by the deceased Guard. A case occurred some time ago where a detective-sergeant was shot in the execution of his duty. His widow brought a claim for compensation and, after hearing the evidence, the High Court awarded compensation. The case was appealed and the judgment of the Supreme Court was that the next of kin should get £650 as compensation, less the assets of the deceased sergeant. The sergeant who was shot dead in the execution of his duty had a house, valued approximately at £350, which he had willed to his wife. Out of the £650 compensation awarded to the widow and dependents the value of the house was deducted. The widow received the £650 compensation, less the value of the house, just as if the State had given the widow the house and not her husband, who had managed to gather together the cost of the house by prudence and thrift in the course of his service as a member of the Gárda Síochána.

I think that is an outrageous conception of the law. It is an outrageous situation that a member of the Gárda Síochána who loses his life in the execution of his duty and who leaves a widow and children, should be treated in that fashion. The interpretation of the Act results in the next-of-kin getting a low scale of compensation, but the most vicious and incomprehensible aspect of the matter is that whatever assets a Guard had through his thrift and prudence are deducted from the compensation which the widow gets.

The Deputy is aware that in discussing an Estimate it is not permissible to criticise legislation or propose remedial legislation. The law was passed and the courts are bound to administer it, such as it is.

Before you took the Chair I was calling attention to the fact that, when the Bill was going through the House, the Minister indicated the purpose behind it, the spirit of it, and I was adverting to the atmosphere in which the Bill passed through the House. I am now endeavouring to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that it was believed the Bill would remedy flaws in previous legislation. In its interpretation now it is doing anything but that. I want to call the attention of the Minister to the manner in which what I then believed was his assurance is now being implemented. I do not intend to delay much further on that point and perhaps the Chair will allow me to finish.

I suggest to the Minister, although this is a matter in which he ought to take the initiative, that where a member of the Gárda Síochána loses his life in the course of his duty we ought to provide a generous scale of compensation for his dependents. A generous scale is not being provided and if the Minister wants to get the Guards at the highest possible pitch of efficiency he will say to every member of that body: "If you serve the State and if, in the course of doing so, you lose your life and thereby deprive your wife and children of your company, assistance and the protection which you can give them, then the State will stand behind your widow and children and make sure they will not suffer hardship because of the loss of your income." I was saying that under a recent judgment the courts decided, in the case of a member of the Guards who lost his life, to award £650 to his dependents, less the amount of his assets. The value of the Guard's house was subtracted from the compensation awarded. If you pursue that further and if the Guard had a house valued at £700 and not £350, then the widow who had lost her husband would get no compensation at all because under the recent court ruling the assets exceeded the compensation and, therefore, no compensation would be paid.

The Deputy will realise that the construction of the law is a matter for the courts. It is for us to make the law and the courts to construe it.

The Minister for Justice, when he was introducing the Bill, led us to believe that it was to remedy flaws and give the Guards a fair break. I suggest that far from getting a fair break they got a raw deal.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is aware that it was an amendment to that Bill, at the request of the Opposition, including the Deputy, that was responsible for that position.

Of course I know that.

Mr. Boland

If that Bill was passed as introduced, it would have been all right.

The Bill would have been all right, the Minister says, so now it is all wrong.

Mr. Boland

It is going to be amended—the Deputy knows that as well as I do.

I am glad to hear that. That will give me an opportunity of shortening my speech.

Mr. Boland

That was my object.

I am glad the Minister has assured the House that the Act will be amended and that in the new legislation steps will be taken to ensure that reasonable compensation will be provided for the dependents of Gárdaí who die in the execution of their duty.

Mr. Boland

That is right.

If the Minister gives that assurance, I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Boland

That is quite right.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but there have been a number of Deputies who talked about juvenile delinquency and who made a very strong case in relation to the bad effect that the cinema has on children's minds. I am prepared to admit that probably certain films are in no way suitable for children. But I do not believe that the increase in juvenile crime has been in any way caused by films. I can remember in my young days, when there were not quite as many picture houses as there are at present, when the Sexton Blake and Buffalo Bill books were supposed to be responsible. So far as I can remember, there was an exceedingly high moral tone in these little books. Virtue was always triumphant and wrong was always found out in the end. Anybody who took up these books would see that they could not have done any boy any harm. It was often said to me that it was very bad to read these, that it would affect my knowledge of English and that I might get very bad ideas. I do not know whether my knowledge of the English language was corrupted, but certainly my morals were not corrupted in any way by them.

The question of juvenile crime is a very big one to enter into exhaustively. It arises from a number of things; but I believe that social conditions are at the root of most crimes, whether adult or juvenile. If we improve our social conditions to the extent to which we would like to see them improved, juvenile crime will decrease and, of course, adult crime with it. Crime, of course, comes from many things, but it is the bad child of social conditions.

Another question I should like to touch upon is the health of the Civic Guards. Speaking from memory, I think that within the last year or two it was stated that the incidence of tuberculosis was pretty high among the Civic Guards. I do not know what information the Minister has on that matter, but I would be very glad to get the explanations that his experts advance for that situation. In a country such as ours it does seem wrong that amongst our Guards we should have a high tuberculosis rate, or at any rate a rate higher than the general rate of tuberculosis amongst police forces.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the way in which he handles juvenile crime. But I should like to say to him that, while a good measure of praise is due to him for the way in which he is beginning to tackle that problem, the country generally has not any reason to feel satisfied that we are really dealing with this matter in the very best possible fashion. We are beginning to realise that children are not necessarily criminals. While we are realising that, we do not seem to have the physical facilities for dealing with this matter— the proper remand homes and the properly segregated institutions, or at least enough of them. Our minds are awake to the problem, but we have not yet put our hands in our pockets and spent the necessary money. I am sure the Minister would be whole-heartedly in favour of such a policy and I would urge on him the necessity for that. Educated public opinion in this country will applaud any increased efforts that are made for dealing with this problem. We are one of the small countries of the world, and if the small countries have any contribution to make—and I believe they have— their contribution must lie largely in the things of the mind and in social order and justice. I personally will not feel satisfied until I see Ireland leading in this matter of dealing with juvenile and other crimes. I would put that point of view to the Minister, and I am certain that he will get the enthusiastic support of the people in dealing with that matter.

There are only a few points which I wish to put to the Minister. The first is the question of the attendance at dance halls. If I am not mistaken, the law as it stands provides that young people under 18 years of age should not be allowed into dance halls. There is great abuse in connection with that matter which I think could be easily dealt with. I understand that the onus is on the Civic Guards and the owners of dance halls to check the ages of those attending such dances. I think the Civic Guards or the dance hall owners should not have any liability in regard to that matter further than to get the names of the young people concerned and that the parents should be made responsible. Young people do not carry their birth certificates with them to dances, and when a Guard goes into a dance hall it is not easy for him to say whether young people are under 18 years of age. I think it should be made punishable for parents to allow their children under that age to go to dance halls, where it can be proved that they have given their consent, even tacit consent.

A good deal has been said about the power of films for good or evil on young people. Several Deputies suggested that special films should be provided for young people and I thoroughly agree with that. I think there should be special films for young people, as I believe that the films usually provided for grown-ups are not suitable for those under 16 years, or perhaps a year or two older. I think it would be a great step forward if something could be done along that line. It should be easy to provide suitable films for young people which would be good for them.

A good deal has been said on the matter of drink, and I think there should be some tightening up in that regard. There is no doubt that there are abuses, particularly by young people. Fortunately, it is only on a very small scale, but there is not a shadow of doubt that young people are indulging in drink. There is a danger that that might spread and become a great evil. There is no doubt too that young girls take drink, particularly at dances, and it is causing grave concern at the moment both to the parents and to the clergy. It does not happen very often, but from my own experience I know that that habit is creeping into the country districts. I suppose it is being copied from the so-called upper classes. It is only in its infancy at the moment, as most young girls have a natural abhorrence of drink, but the practice is definitely creeping in, and is causing great concern.

Yesterday evening, we had the strangest occurrence in this House. I think we must be the only Legislative Assembly in Europe that can claim to have a prophet amongst its members. Yesterday evening Deputy Dillon foretold that Deputy O Cléirigh would twist Deputy Cafferky's remarks on the subject of drink in County Mayo. He said that Deputy O Cléirigh had just left the House to lubricate his throat— I think those were the words he used— before returning to the fray. Strange to relate, that prophecy was fulfilled this evening. I do not want to defend Deputy Cafferky; there is no need to do that. But Deputy Cafferky is young; he may not be as cautious in the use of words as he will be when he has had more experience here in the House. Every Deputy is free to put whatever construction he likes on another Deputy's statements, but I was listening to Deputy Cafferky and I think he conveyed quite clearly that what he was referring to were the rare cases of abuse in connection with drink. I took it from Deputy O Cléirigh's speech here this evening that he was actually condoning drink. He said that the people of County Mayo were not by any means addicted to drink. Of course, the vast majority are not, the same as in any other county in Ireland, but we must take the rare cases into account. We would not condemn a whole flock of sheep because there is one black sheep amongst them, and neither do we condemn the whole countryside as drunkards simply because there are a few drunkards. What Deputy Cafferky clearly condemned is the fact that parents on some occasions allow their children in to public houses while they themselves are taking drink. Deputy Cafferky told nothing but the truth in that case, and I think it was a very unfair misrepresentation on Deputy O Cléirigh's part to construe his speech in that way.

A few Deputies, both on the Fine Gael and the Fianna Fáil Benches, think they have done their duty to their country and made a great contribution to the debate if they open their speeches with a broadside attack on Clann na Talmhan. We do not by any means apologise for our attendance here, and the Deputies who make those attacks seem to convey that they would like us to do so. I do not think there were four speakers on any side of the House during the debate on the Agriculture Estimate who did not open their speeches by an attack on us. I do not see what that contributes to the debate. My idea of a contribution to the debates here is that every speaker, whether he is a solicitor or anything else, should put his own views before the Minister. If he thinks the Minister and his Department have not done their duty, let them have it. That is my idea of a contribution to the debate—perhaps I am all wrong. I cannot see how far it gets this House or where it gets any Deputy to make an attack on any other Deputy. Deputy Ó Cléirigh on two occasions has devoted practically his whole speech to painting Deputy Cafferky as being this, that or the other thing. I cannot see how the House is interested in that kind of speech. Deputy Cafferky, to my mind, made a very good case in pointing out certain abuses that exist in South Mayo, his own constituency, and he was perfectly right in doing so. I take all this misrepresentation as a direct attempt at intimidation to prevent Deputy Cafferky and other members on the Clann na Talmhan Benches from speaking at all. I am sorry to have to take up the time of the House in referring to these matters, because I do not believe in personal abuse, but it has occurred so often that it has become disgusting.

I should like particularly to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that young girls are drinking. I do not know whether it is possible for him to take action in that regard. There is no doubt that, especially in the case of dances in towns, girls under 20 years of age, particularly around holiday time and Christmas, can be seen drunk, as a direct result, I believe, of being in company with male companions who are no better than sharks in human form. I think there should be more rigid supervision of the sale of drink on those occasions. The practice is only in its infancy yet, and now is the time to nip it in the bud. If the Minister or his officials can devise any means of checking it I think it is their duty to do so.

I think the debate here was very good and very informative. It took longer than usual, but my opinion is that it was time well spent. There were some very useful contributions. I think the best line I can take is to go through the speeches of the different Deputies, and when I come to some point that I can raise generally I will spend some time on that. I will deal with most of the minor points raised, and I hope with all the major ones. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who was the first speaker, seemed to suggest that I very lightly brushed aside the crime position. I do not think I did any such thing. I said it was an undoubted fact that crime had not increased since last year, but that still it was double what it was in normal times, and I deplored that. I gave what I thought was one of the reasons for that—the shortage of supplies. It is not confined to one section of the community. I think it was suggested last year that the unemployed and the poorer sections of the community were responsible. That is not so. We are aware that in times like these, when money will not buy everything, even those who have plenty of money will steal things. They might have money to buy them, but they cannot get them for money. We had cases of men with enormous salaries being put in the dock for stealing things which they would buy if they could get them. I think it is very largely the scarcity of commodities which people are not prepared to do without that is responsible for a lot of the increase in crime. I hope that will not be taken as an excuse for it, but that is the fact.

One of the best speeches I heard during this debate was made by Deputy Linehan. He really put the blame on the right shoulders. Some people are inclined to say that the schools are to blame; others will say that the Church has not done its work properly; but very few got as near the mark as Deputy Linehan, who put the major responsibility—some of the Clann na Talmhan Deputies also did so—on the parents. I think that is where the major blame belongs. There certainly is a lessening of parental control, and when children get to a certain age, when they reach their teens, it is rather late to begin to exercise control. I believe that is one of the most menacing situations we have to meet to-day with regard to juvenile crime—that parents do not exercise proper control over their children and that whatever efforts are made by clergy or teachers in schools are not backed up to the extent to which they should be by the parents.

Deputy Linehan also drew attention to another big failing from which the whole of the Irish people—it may be, and probably is, due to our history—suffer, that is, the reluctance on the part of practically any of us to help those in authority, to help the Guards. He instanced a case—I do not know whether it was an actual case or an example of what might happen —of 20 people watching a man stripping a bicycle, not one of whom would be prepared to give evidence. I think that is largely true, and so long as we have that spirit, so long as people do not recognise that the Guards are there to protect them, and until the people are prepared to co-operate with them, I do not think we shall get very far in arresting crime. We could talk about the causes of juvenile delinquency for ages, and I would very much like to have an exhaustive inquiry into its causes, to see what remedies could be suggested. I do not know whether I would be able to get any such commission going, but I shall look into it and see what can be done. My belief is that one of the major causes of the whole problem is this lack of parental control.

With regard to what is happening in relation to these offenders and the social position, so to to speak, of the children who have been dealt with, I got the police to compile certain information, which, I think, will be useful, relating to juveniles charged in 1942, which, I think, would be fairly representative of what happens in any year and setting out what these crimes are attributable to. In that year there were 3,350 cases. Of these the police held lack of parental control to be responsible for 1,348 cases; youthful gang influence, 354; criminal association, 109; ordinary mischief, 521; desire to get money for amusement, 832; and necessity, about 186. The occupations of the parents were: industrial workers, 266; agricultural workers, 299; casual labourers, 936; other occupations, 1,220; and no occupation, 629.

Mr. Larkin

What does "no occupation" mean?

Mr. Boland

I suppose people of no employment, but I really cannot say whether it means people who are unemployed or people who never worked at all. With regard to the types of houses these offenders came from, in the case of 498, they were from tenement houses; 1,064 were from houses of three rooms or less; and 1,788 from houses of more than three rooms. I think we can deduce from these figures that it is not the very poor who are responsible for most of these offences. The total number of boys between the ages of 12 and 18 in the Twenty-Six Counties in 1942 was in the neighbourhood of 200,000, and, of these, 2,340, or 15 per cent., were prosecuted during that year for indictable offences. As to how they were dealt with in the courts, of the 3,350 charged in that year, in 284 cases the charges were not proved, were withdrawn, were dismissed or otherwise disposed of, leaving 3,066 cases. The number of cases dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act was 1,395; discharged on recognisances, 600; discharged under the supervision of a probation officer, 348; committed to care of relative or other fit person, 12; fined, 239; whipped, four; committed to industrial schools, 121; committed to reformatory schools, 130; sentenced to detention in a place of detention—like Summerhill, or the present place of detention, Marlboro House, for a very short time—19; sentenced to imprisonment, 119; and otherwise disposed of, 79. I do not know what the effect of these sentences on these children is likely to be.

Mr. A. Byrne

Do the figures include school attendance?

Mr. Boland

No, indictable offences. A question which has been raised several times and particularly by Deputy Connolly—and Deputy McGilligan referred to it to-night—is this question of the necessity for appointing more probation officers. Deputy McGilligan suggested that we had allowed Finance to stop us in this matter. I can assure him that that is not the case at all. I am not satisfied that extra probation officers will do the job, and I told Deputy Connolly, in answer to a question, that, after full consideration, my opinion was that societies of the type of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and others in different parts of the country can, on what is called application, become registered societies and grants may be made to help them in their work. I recommended Deputy Connolly to try to get that done in Dundalk and I now strongly recommend him to do so.

I know that the probation officers perform a useful function, but they simply cannot do this job. I believe the whole community will have to lend a hand, and societies of this kind, composed of public-spirited people—and there are, thank God, numbers of them in this country—should be encouraged in every way to help in this work. We have made a very good start in the city, as I have said several times. His Grace the Archbishop got in touch a couple of years ago with the Legion of Mary, and in each area they got volunteers to co-operate with the whole-time probation officers in helping to look after these children. Special classes have been held for probationers in different parts of the city. They have not been quite as successful as we would wish, but I think a good beginning has been made, and on these lines far more will be done, I think, than by employing another 16 or 18 probation officers. I have no objection to approaching Finance and would have no difficulty in getting the Minister for Finance to agree to give me any extra assistance of that kind which I want. I do think the money would be much better spent in making grants to organisations of the kind I have mentioned, who will look upon it as a social duty and privilege to help those young people who require it and try to get them into useful ways of life and away from crime.

I am well aware that a lot of this is due to the social conditions. I appreciate what Deputy McGilligan has said. I have not had the experience he has had in attending the court. I have never been in the Circuit Court. I realise the position and the difficulty. The Guards are told that football must not be allowed on the streets. As a general rule, if the Guards see that it is not likely to lead to any accident, I think they turn a blind eye to it. There may be cases where young Guards may be over-officious and haul a lot of these young boys in. I do not know to what extent that occurs. Deputy McGilligan seemed to think a lot of that is done.

The Deputy also pointed out the need for more playgrounds. I fully realise that, too. Until we are able to improve social conditions generally, especially in the large towns, it will be very difficult to rectify this situation. There is no use in blaming the Guards or the Government. It is a job in which we must all lend a hand. A start—a modest start—has been made, and certainly it is on the right lines. I do not think that lack of funds will be responsible if there is any failure. I appeal to Deputies to help as much as they can, by getting societies of that kind into the different districts. The Department will give all the cooperation possible.

Mr. A. Byrne

And make a grant for playgrounds?

Mr. Boland

I am afraid that is not a matter for me. Certainly, I will do everything I can, as a member of the Government, in that matter. There was one question about whipping. I am going to take a chance of being put down as a brutal sort of person by my remarks. Some Deputy did say that, for the recent type of crime of snatching women's handbags and striking people on the head and robbing them, we will have to resort to that punishment. That may not appeal to Deputy Connolly, but I certainly stand for that. In the case of the district justice in Dundalk who sentenced boys to be birched, if it had not been for the flaw in the sentence, I would not have intervened. A lot of the evil is due to the parents not doing what they should do, that is, give them a good hiding and knock a bit of obedience into them. In the case of those particular boys, they had apparently got completely out of hand, and the parents had repudiated their responsibility. We cannot put them all into schools. If I were to make a suggestion to district justices, I would say that they should get more after the parents and fine the parents heavily. That may bring home to them the duty they have to the children they brought into the world, and make them realise they should not throw the whole burden on the State. So far, the number of sentences to birchings has been very small, but I am certainly not going to remove that from the Statute Book. It may be necessary, and if justices see fit to impose such sentences, I certainly am not going to interfere with their discretion. I do not care what name I get for that.

Will the Minister not agree that there is a great difference between a good hiding and a birching?

Mr. Boland

There is. As far as I understand it, birching is not the good hiding it ought to be. There is that difference. The Guards who have the job of administering these punishments are big, hefty men with soft hearts. It may read ferocious and fierce, but if Deputy Connolly were present, he would have a different impression.

In other words, the Guards connive regarding the sentence.

Mr. Boland

I would like to see such young lads get a really good hiding from someone, if the justice thinks fit. If justices read my remarks, I suggest they consider punishing the parents, in order to bring home to them that it is their job. In saying all that, I know there is a fundamental cause for all this delinquency, both adult and juvenile. It is not to-day it arose: it is there, I suppose, from the beginning of time. The growth of modern civilisation, this top-heavy city idea, has contributed very largely to it. If there were some way we could devise, in our organisation of civilisation, to have smaller units rather than big cities, with their inevitable slums, there would be a better chance. I hope that the planners of the future will make some effort to bear that in mind, in designing towns from now on.

There is one healthy sign in the way that everyone is thinking of these things. We seem to be at a crisis of history, where big changes are being made, which may last for quite a long time. It is very hopeful and helpful to find in this House a concern for the way things are shaping, the way children are becoming delinquents and, particularly, the causes of that delinquency. When human beings set their minds to searching for causes, I believe they will succeed in finding the remedies.

Deputy Dillon has been very keen on the Borstal system. I do not know why it was given that name: I think it was from some house in England. It is a system of not treating boys altogether as children, but of trying to educate them to better ways. They are not prisoners with short sentences, they are a type of boys who show signs of becoming hardened young criminals. They have been before the courts and sentenced more than once. Generally, the judge feels: "If I send this boy to Mountjoy, in three or six months he will only be worse; I will send him to Borstal for three years and get the Department of Justice to try to make a good job of him."

Mr. Larkin

From the frying pan into the fire.

Mr. Boland

I visited the Borstal Institute and, first of all, changed it from Clonmel to Cork Jail. I must say that Cork Jail is a very poor institution for a work of that kind. The trouble was that I had not Aladdin's lamp, and, in a time like the present, I could not produce a building, nor could the Office of Public Works produce one.

Mr. Larkin

Ask Davy Frame.

Mr. Boland

Neither Davy Frame nor anyone else. We searched for houses. People glibly talk about that and say that houses can be obtained, but I found they would need such adaptation and reconstruction as would make the idea impossible. I have visited several of them and have come to the conclusion that we must get a virgin site and build a proper institution, with plenty of ground. That is my view. I was speaking to Deputy Dillon to-day about it, but he does not seem to agree. I have despaired of getting a building at the present time.

In the meantime, I claim that we have done something towards making this system more like what it was intended to be. The boys are not locked in cells as they used to be, but are left out until about 10 p.m. The Cork Jail is not suitable. We could not get a proper playground there. After some time we got in touch with those in charge of Cork University and they were kind enough to put one of their playing fields at the disposal of those boys. There is also a very useful institution in Cork City composed of public spirited citizens which is doing marvellous work of the Borstal kind. It is looking after those boys. They are given lectures, they are brought out for walks and cycle runs and to play football. They are taught shoe-making and carpentry. Generally speaking, an attempt is being made to make them what normal boys ought to be. I can say that from my own personal experience. Recently, when returning from playing football three of those boys bolted and so far they have not been caught. It was put up to me officially that, in consequence, I ought to stop this privilege which they have been enjoying. I said that I was not going to victimise the boys who did not run away for those who did. When the Guards catch those who ran away we will have to deal with them.

Send them back to Clonmel where they were taught all classes of trades.

Mr. Boland

Clonmel was not suitable either. When they were in Clonmel we could not get any sort of a playing ground for them.

They have hundreds of soldiers in the Borstal institution in Clonmel now.

Mr. Boland

I want the House to know that we are taking a practical interest in this question. I do not hope to solve it, but I hope before I leave office that steps will have been taken in that direction. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney spoke about crimes of violence. He said they were very much on the increase. Statistics, as we know, will prove almost anything. I have here some figures with regard to crimes of that sort—robbery with violence and assault with intent to rob. The figures relate to the period between 1927 and 1943. There was undoubtedly a big increase last year, but over the whole period there was not a big increase in that type of crime. In 1927 the number was 66, in 1928, 62. In 1929 the number went down to 42. In 1937 the number was 15. The figure started to rise again in 1940 and 1941. In 1942 it went down to 42. This year there has been a big increase as compared with last year. The number is 77. I know it is bad and I am not trying to make little of it or treating it complacently. At the same time, there is no use in saying that there has been an enormous increase. There has been an increase, I admit, in this very dangerous type of crime. I think that the robbery with violence that is now taking place is largely made possible by the partial black-out that we have.

The Minister, I think, will admit that 1927 was a fallacious year to take for the reason that the crime at that time might be described as political. The present ones are more of a social kind.

Mr. Boland

I agree.

Mr. Larkin

Is the Minister able to tell us the ages of the criminals?

Mr. Boland

No. This is simply a return dealing with robbery with violence. It is a bad form of crime and has broken out recently. I admit that it is alarming. An army officer, a friend of mine——

Mr. Larkin

Close the public-houses at 10 o'clock and you will have less crime.

Mr. Boland

I do not think it is drunken people who are committing these crimes at all. This friend of mine, an Army officer, on his way home, was struck on the back of the head and robbed. Then there is a case which is sub judice at the moment where a man's body was found in the river. It looks as if it were one of these cases: that they did not mean to kill him but actually did and then threw the body into the water. The Guards are doing very good work in unearthing this class of crime. I think it will be found that there is some sort of a gang operating. One gang has been laid by the heels, and I believe the Guards will get to the bottom of that particular crime.

The case that the Minister has referred to is the one that I had in mind where the man's body was found in the Liffey.

Mr. Larkin

Attacks on women and young girls are also very serious.

Mr. Boland

I think that is all I have to say about crime. Deputy Fitgzerald-Kenney spoke about dance halls. Deputy Blowick said that we could not expect the Guards to be at every dance hall, or the dance hall people to get the birth certificates of all the young people coming to the dances. Deputy Linehan and Deputy Blowick put the responsibility for these matters on parents and said that they should exercise more care. It would be hard to expect the Guards to follow young people to find out whether they were 18 years of age or not and whether they were going to dances.

On the question of drink, since the Intoxicating Liquor Act of last year was passed the Guards are now in a position to deal with anybody who attempts to get drink after 12 o'clock at night. I think they are trying to do that. As country Deputies are aware, the position prior to the passing of that Act was that once 12 o'clock came on a Sunday night people who lived three miles away from a public-house were entitled to go in and get drink. In fact, they could remain there until closing hour the next night. That is not possible now. I think that the Guards are enforcing this Act. They will have no excuse, if they are not doing so, by saying that they did not know whether the people found on the premises were bona fide travellers or not. Nobody is allowed to drink on licensed premises now after 12 o'clock at night except in cases where a special permit has been obtained from the district justice. Before the 1943 Act was passed, if there was a dance hall in a village, and a public-house near it, there was nothing, as I have said, to prevent people going into the public-house after 12 o'clock at night and getting drink. The Guards could not interfere with them. They often had a great difficulty in knowing whether the young people who went in for drink lived over the prescribed distance or not. That is no longer the case and, unless the courts give a special permission, the Guards will have no difficulty in bringing it home to the publican and to those on the premises.

Deputy Linehan made a very useful speech and I think it was he who said that perhaps the district justice would consider fining the people who go in after hours more heavily than the owner of the public-house. I think there is a lot of commonsense in that. It is rather hard to expect the person who owns the premises and who earns his living by it to turn out customers if they are there after hours. If the district justices will take notice of that and consider it, it might lead to an improvement. I think the position ought to be better as regards drinking at dances than it was last year. If it is not, then the Guards must be slack in the areas where it is done, because they have not the excuse they had before.

They drink until 12 o'clock and the dance goes on; they go back to the dance later and they kick up a row under the influence of the drink.

Mr. Boland

I know that they used to drink from 12 o'clock into the small hours of the morning.

Mr. Boland

It is very hard to deal with some of these things. We cannot have the State interfering at every step. The whole community will have to take notice of this thing and the people will have to do their best to help. If we do not arouse public support it will be no good. It is not altogether a police job. The police cannot attend to everything.

As regards internment, when we were first interned in 1916 there is no question that that internment was one of the most foolish things the British Government ever did. We certainly did organise the whole of Ireland. But, after the Civil War, I was interned for a little over two years and it was quite a different situation. We had time to cool our heels, to weigh up the situation and to study the pros and cons. A prisoner is not going to humiliate himself to anybody. I would not do it, and we do not expect other men to do it. Nevertheless, they had their minds made up that it was futile, seeing they had been beaten in the fight that took place over the Treaty, to continue. The vast majority of the men interned felt like that. That was my own opinion from the day I was captured, but nobody knew it, because I would not let anybody know it. I was not prepared to eat my words. All the same, that was my opinion and it was the opinion held by others that it was absolutely futile to continue. Therefore, the internment in that case had quite a different effect.

I felt satisfied from a close examination of the people interned that I would be able to release so many. They were able to weigh up the situation and they asked themselves whether they would go on and what would it lead to and, except for the hard core that we were likely to have for a good while, the internment had a very good effect, a salutary effect, and it made these people far more reasonable than when they were interned.

I would like to draw attention to the changed situation that we are in to-day as compared with the time when the internment was first undertaken. We have a different House. In the last Dáil, from the very beginning of the internment, every Party in the House knew about it. We had our Defence Conference, and I could get the views of the main Opposition and the Labour Party, and any Independents I wished to consult, with the result that for the whole period of the internment there was not one question raised in the last Dáil. That shows that the position was fairly satisfactory, and people must have been satisfied. We had no fully organised L.D.F. then. In every area in the country there was an element which was likely to be a very serious menace. When the matter was raised last July, I drew attention to the circumstances in which we found ourselves when a certain document was captured, a document which planned, as far as we could see, for a projected invasion of this country, when that same organisation had actually carried out the operation that Deputy Anthony referred to to-day, the so-called war, and taken on themselves the right that only this House has.

That organisation, not very numerous, was still rather widespread in that there was scarcely a parish in which it was not represented. Consequently, to make sure of our position, it was felt by the whole House— otherwise the Government would not have got the powers—that it was absolutely necessary to take these people and prevent them doing what we were satisfied they were prepared to do if the opportunity arose. All Parties in the State combined; we got our local defence forces together and now we are in the happy position that there is not a corner of the country in which they are not strong. The result was that a lot of these people were released. I have been asked how many of these people went back on their word. I have not asked the majority of these people to give any undertaking whatever. I would not give very much for any undertaking.

Mr. Larkin

You said here that the keys were in their own pockets.

Mr. Boland

Yes, if they wished to avail of them. I think I know the case of every individual who is interned. It is not a question of examining a case to-day and again in six months. Almost every day I have gone into this matter, because I feel a personal responsibility, and I know how serious it is to take the liberty of a man even for one minute, not to mention a year. There are some men in there for four years. Others have been let out. I would not give tuppence for the word of most of them. Talking of undertakings, some are offering to give any undertaking, and I would not, from the information at my disposal, be prepared to risk letting them out. There are others with whom the Guards could easily deal if they got out of hand. That was why I referred to the keys being in their own pockets. As regards those who, up to this, claim that they have the right to involve us in war or, worse still, to take the life of any citizen here, as long as I have a say in the matter I certainly will not agree to let them out amongst the public. I have no right to do it.

Deputy McGilligan asked me how this matter would be dealt with. When the internment first started, there was a tribunal set up to review the cases of people interned. We put a High Court judge there, and only one or two cases went before him. I saw right away that it was going to be no good. I explained the whole matter to the Defence Conference at the time. I said that people who, I was perfectly certain, were aiding and abetting and very actively doing valuable work for this organisation, had been recommended for release by the tribunal, and things would not be easy if that system were to continue. It would mean that I would have to get evidence to convince the tribunal that it was not advisable to have those releases. If I had that evidence I would put it before the court. The organisation was of such a type that they worked in secret and conspired together and decided to take people's lives. They were able to cover up those who committed those crimes, and we had to intern them without trial for the reason that we simply could not get proof.

We know what the position of the last Government was. I was told about my attitude here to the Constitutional Amendment. I think I made my attitude clear in the speech that I made on that occasion. I undoubtedly did not support it. I may have been wrong, but I did think that, if a break were given at one particular time, things might be better. We gave that break. We did it more than once, but it was proved conclusively that the more leniency or softness we showed towards these people the worse they got. We are certainly in this position, that we tried the other method but it did not succeed. I am not saying that the other Government did not try it. I admit that probably it would have the same result. I thought genuinely at the time that if we did try that method we would have good results. I am perfectly satisfied now that if a new Government had been elected last June, and if they did what we did in 1932 there would have been disastrous results if they let out all these people. One of the reasons why we have so little of this violence now is because we have the most dangerous of these people under lock and key. There are some of them we have not got.

When one of the bravest men belonging to one of the best families of this country was murdered in Rathfarnham as a result of a cowardly ambush with machine-guns, we issued advertisements and published photographs of the people we wanted to interview, but we could not get any help. We could not get them. It is a fact that immediately after that gallant man was murdered these people actually cycled through a crowd who were standing at the gate over the dead body of that murdered man, and yet we could get no help from anybody. That is what we are up against. Three of these people, as I said last July, gave a solemn undertaking that they were through with all this thing. That is what we are up against. When Deputy Connolly in his innocence, if it is innocence—I do not see how it could be; in view of what I said last July I am afraid it is a little more than that—suggested that we should bring the remainder of these people up for trial, he was simply trying to fool himself. He certainly is not going to fool me or the country. The fact is that we cannot get the evidence. We have knowledge that the most dangerous elements in that body are interned. There are some others whom we should like to get and hold, too. So far as I can see, we will get no good of this organisation by any more soft work. Even if the war were over, until we can make sure that these people are not going to take on themselves the right to take human life, it would be very dangerous to set them at liberty.

Deputy McGilligan asked what happens in these cases. In every case, I do not wait until I am asked. I have a periodical look through all the names. If anybody asks me to review any case, any Deputy or any relation of any interned person, I immediately do it. I have refused in one case; I have refused Deputy Connolly and will continue to do so. The man concerned is prepared to sign any undertaking, but I would not give a snap of the fingers for it. That is not because of what the Gárdaí tell me. I am perfectly satisfied myself. Deputy O'Donnell mentioned another man. He may have high ideals and all that, but the man he is referring to, in my opinion, is a dangerous gunman who cannot be let out. I am sorry to say that he is not in good health, but in my opinion he is a dangerous man and I would not take the responsibility at a time like this of ordering his release. There are people of that type there. I cannot prove these things. I have the information which enables me to take that decision and the last Dáil anyway unanimously gave me that power. I think that is as satisfactory as it can be. There is not a case that is not inquired into. If I had not given satisfaction, I think I would be told so. I am open to hear of any change of mind on the part of these people, but it must be genuine. I must have regard to the fact that I believe anyway that three of these people had a hand in that murder. One of them, whom we suspected of two other murders of Guards, gave a most solemn undertaking that he was through with all this thing, and persuaded the Guards to that effect; so much so, that I myself questioned the Guards and they stated they were perfectly satisfied and that is the result.

As to the pay of the Guards, which was raised by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, and other Deputies, of course any Minister in charge of the Department would like to pay the Guards as much as he could. I know that they are not in the same position as they were at the start of the emergency, but nobody else is either. The value of everybody's money is gone down by the same amount. We have all had to do without things we could have got before the war.

Mr. Larkin

Surely £2 a week is not sufficient?

Mr. Boland

That is another matter which I shall deal with in a moment. I would certainly like to have the Guards in as strong a financial position as possible. When I put that matter before the Minister for Finance, I tried to get better treatment for the Guards and I nearly got away with it. I thought I had got it, but I was caught out, because immediately I tried to get a bigger increase for the Guards every member of the Civil Service naturally expected the same and everybody had to be treated on the same basis. The teachers and others had to get an increase; the Minister for Finance could not discriminate. The Gárdaí are undoubtedly going through a hard time, but is there anybody in the country who is not? Everybody has to do without something that he could get before; even people who have plenty of money. They cannot get the things they were able to get before. There is only a limited amount of goods available and any increase in pay will not produce the goods. We have to ration them and make them go round as far as we can.

As to the £2 for recruits, Deputy Larkin was not a member of the House when that was discussed. I was pressed very strongly as to why I agreed to that. The position was that we had the usual fight with Finance. We were pressing every year for an increased rent allowance for Guards and it was taken off one section and given to another. I had to accept that. I insisted that, if we had to accept that, we should lower the age for recruits. I would not stand for an initial pay of £2 per week for a man of 27 years. We reduced the age for entrance to 22 at first and then it was raised to 23. The position is that that £2 per week is paid to very young men when they are in training. The training takes about six moths. When they go out on beat duty they get an increment of 10/- and, in addition to that, they get a bonus of 10/-. I admit that that is not a princely salary. I understand that they are in the Depot for six months while training and they get £2 while they are there. For young men it is tolerable enough. I was prepared to accept it anyhow at the time, and I think the House accepted the compromise that we made on that occasion. But, when they start out on duty, they get £3 per week. We also got a steeper increase for them in the rate of increment than was at first suggested.

As to the Rule-making Committee, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney does not seem to realise that there has been a change in the matter. During the discussion of the Courts of Justice Act of 1936 two leading Deputies on the other side, Mr. Lavery and Mr. Costello, insisted that a representative of the Minister for Justice should not be on that Rule making Committee and the Minister gave way, with the result that there is no representative of the Minister on the Rule-making Committee. It is a matter entirely for the legal profession. Some are nominated. If the Deputy will look up the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, he will find that it is a matter entirely for the legal profession and the judges. The Incorporated Law Society and the Bar Council appoint their representatives and the judges are also represented. They have not been able to arrange matters. There is, probably, some force in the point made by the Deputy that we should reconsider the whole position and try to get away from that system. I cannot imagine any satisfactory amendment of the court rules being effected without the active help of some of the judges. Deputy Davin raised a question regarding the film censor's increase of salary.

Mr. Larkin

What about the cleaning of the barracks?

Mr. Boland

That has been in agitation for a long time but it appears that, during the days of the R.I.C., that was part of their duty.

Mr. Larkin

Can you not get away from the R.I.C.?

Mr. Boland

During our own time, that was also the position. I have taken this matter up with the Minister for Finance. I do not know how far I shall succeed, but he will, probably, make some allowance towards barrack-cleaning. I told Deputy Norton that we are not satisfied with the Act governing compensation for Guards injured in the course of their duty and the dependents of Guards who are killed in the course of their duty. We had to wait to get the exact judgment of the Supreme Court. In due course, we shall introduce an amending Bill.

Mr. Larkin

Will it be retrospective?

Mr. Boland

Yes. Deputy Davin wanted to know why we increased the salary of the film censor by 50 per cent. Everybody knows how efficient the outgoing film censor, Mr. Montgomery, was. He was not entitled to a pension and his salary was £900. I was asked by the Chairman of the Film Appeals Board to get some provision made for Mr. Montgomery on retirement. His successor, Dr. Hayes, very generously offered to forgo one-third of the salary for the post in order to make provision for Mr. Montgomery— a thing which we could not do under the law as it stood. Mr. Montgomery was 70 years of age and had to retire. When he left, he had £300 a year and, when he died, Dr. Hayes got the salary which had been enjoyed by his predecessor. That is the explanation of the increase in the figure.

A very important and very damaging statement was made by Deputy Davin. He was quite definite in his suggestion that letters which the police got authority to open had been handed to political supporters of the Government and used for political ends. He asked me to explain what happens about these letters and how it comes that letters are opened at all. In certain cases, the police and, in other cases, the Intelligence Department of the Army ask the Minister for Justice to authorise the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to hand over correspondence addressed to certain people or to certain places. That application comes to me. I sign the warrant, which is sent to the Army authorities or to high police authorities. That is done on the requisition of the police or the Army and the warrant is sent to the police or the military, as the case may be, to enable them to obtain and read this correspondence. I was asked by Deputy Davin if those concerned were under an oath of secrecy. They are bound by the Official Secrets Act, and if any member of the Gárda or Army were known to disclose any information obtained that way to any unauthorised person, not only would they be dismissed but they would be prosecuted.

Deputy Davin mentioned this particular case some time ago. He asked me the same question then that he asked me openly last night. I told him what I have said now—that these things do happen. I am not prepared to tell him either the number of such warrants current or the names of the people on that list; but there is such a list. I told him that if he could give me any instance in which a public official had betrayed his trust in that way, I would investigate the matter to the very end and have him dealt with. There were other persons present when he raised this matter, and I felt fairly sure that he would give me the particulars. That is about six weeks ago, and I have not got the particulars yet. I flatly deny his allegation. I think I am entitled to do that in the absence of the detailed information which I expected to receive from him and which would enable me to prosecute my inquiries. The suggestion was made on the occasion on which the matter was raised that the information could have come from another quarter. That is a possibility that cannot be ruled out—that the letter was handed out from the end to which it was addressed. Since the Deputy did not give me the minimum details necessary to have the allegation inquired into, I think I am entitled to say that there is no foundation for it. I assure Deputies that correspondence dealt with in that way does not relate to politics, but to the detection of crime and the defence of the State. This course is only taken under warrant by the Minister for Justice authorising the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to hand over the correspondence.

Is it the usual procedure for the Gárda Síochána to present the Minister's warrant at the post office to which the letters go?

Mr. Boland

That is the way it is done. There is a special section of the Guards to operate the system; it is not done by an ordinary Guard.

Mr. Larkin

Deputy Flanagan must be getting ready to go into the Government.

Mr. Boland

Any reasonable Deputy will appreciate the difficulty of carrying on a modern State if such an arrangement were not possible. I think I have completely refuted Deputy Davin's charge. Deputy MacEoin put some question about the Land Registry. I had dealt with that matter before he came in and I have dealt with it three or four times since. Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about juvenile delinquency and the necessity for additional police. He was probably not present when I was dealing with the matter. I was surprised at his speech. I had thought that the first citizen of Dublin would have made himself sure of his facts before making sweeping statements about conditions at Mountjoy Prison. I do not think that I misrepresent him when I say that he alleged that prisoners were locked up for 18 hours at a stretch. There is no truth whatever in that allegation. As a matter of fact, before I became Minister for Justice they were undoubtedly locked up for quite a long time, but never for as long as that. At 4.30 in the evening they were locked up until about 7 o'clock in the morning. Having been an old "lag" myself, I always thought that was too long. Personally, I did not mind it, because my own company was generally good enough for me, and I could keep my mind occupied by reading, but I know there are other people who are not like that, and it has a very bad effect on them. One of the first things I did was to change the hour from 4.30 to 7.30, so they are locked up now from 7.30 in the evening until about 7 o'clock in the morning. In addition to that, they get an extra meal. The last meal they got used to be about 4 o'clock; they get an extra meal now. I do not pretend that Mountjoy is a heaven on earth, and it was never intended to be. Surely to goodness, not alone must we try to reform those people but there must be some element of punishment. Surely we are not going to be so namby-pamby as to make Mountjoy and Portlaoighise so attractive that there would be a rush for accommodation there. Mountjoy is not nearly as bad as Deputies have made it out to be.

Mr. Larkin

From what the Minister has said I think it must be heaven now compared with when I was in it.

Mr. Boland

I think it can compare with any prison anywhere. Deputy Connolly asked me to visit the female prison in Mountjoy. He almost made us all weep by his description of the female prisoners. It is not so long since I visited Mountjoy, and I made inquiries this morning as to when Deputy Connolly did so. The Governor has no record of his ever having been there. I was there not later than last Christmas, and when I was passing through the place where the women prisoners were I thought for a moment that they were nurses they were so neatly dressed. If any one doubts that, I have one of the costumes conveniently available, and perhaps Mrs. Reynolds or some other Deputy would like to have a look at it. It is a very neat, bright piece of clothing. As I say, when I saw those women there my first impression was that they were a group of nurses. If Deputy Connolly or Deputy Larkin or any other Deputy in the House wishes to visit the female prison in Mountjoy he has only to let me know, and I will get him a permit to do so—the Governor will be only too delighted—and if he can find anything wrong from the point of view of the cleanliness or dress of the women prisoners there I certainly will be astonished. I admit that the type of clothing of the male prisoners is very bad. It is warm, but it is a drab kind of uniform; it makes me sick to look at it. I did ask the Department to see if they could get some better style of dress.

Mr. Larkin

It is nearly as bad as that of the postmen.

Mr. Boland

It is not what I would like. I certainly do agree that dress has an effect. It can have a very depressing effect or the contrary effect on anybody. I think we can all admit that. I do admit that the clothing of the male prisoners is not what I would like it to be, but there would have to be some sort of uniform.

I now come to another aspect of the prisons raised by, I think, Deputy Connolly, that is the conduct of certain people in Portlaoighise and the alleged inhuman way in which they are treated. Undoubtedly there is a group down there who will not conform to prison rules. They say that they are better than the other prisoners. They have murdered Guards and other people. Some of them were sentenced to death and reprieved, but still they think they are better than other people and must not be treated as ordinary prisoners at all. I cannot agree with that at all. I think if people go out and shoot a Guard, and if the Government, after taking all the circumstances into consideration, sees fit to reprieve them, I do not think they are entitled to any better treatment than any other reprieved murderer, and I do not propose to give it to them while I am Minister. There are other people there who committed crimes of violence. They robbed with guns; they terrorised the people; they held up banks and post-offices. But they will not conform to the prison rules. Am I expected to let them rule the prison? They are certainly not going to do it. If they do not see their way to-do what men who are every bit as good as they are—that is the ordinary prisoners—have to do, that is their own look-out. I am certainly not going to be persuaded by them or anybody in this House to change my attitude on that matter.

You have the whole country behind you in that.

Mr. Boland

I frankly admit that it may have a detrimental effect on the health of those men. I admit that I am disturbed about it. It is not a thing I would brush aside lightly; I feel it very much because I have the same softness in me as most Irish people. I feel it very much but I have to swallow my personal feelings, and until they change their attitude they will not get away with this attempt to wreck the system we have in Portlaoighise. I said that the conditions in Portlaoighise are better than in Mountjoy because it is the prison to which people with long sentences go. There is a big farm there and those people could go out on the farm if they wished, or do other useful work of some kind. But they want to be treated as political prisoners. They claim even still that they were right; that they had the right to take the lives of servants of this State, and to hold up post-offices and banks and rob them. I am not conceding that, and there is no use in any Deputy trying to appeal to me on any grounds of humanity. Let them appeal to those who are guilty of those crimes, and who have to take their punishment like every other offender. I think the net result of raising those matters here is to get those people to persevere in their efforts to break down our system. I said last July that raising the matter of the hunger strikers had jeopardised the lives of some of those men, because I know myself—having been on hunger-strike for 40 days—that the slightest thing, even a letter to the newspapers, will give a man in that condition hope that the Government may give in. When we had this unfortunate hunger-strike here which resulted in the loss of two young lives, I warned some of those visitors when they persisted in going in that they would have a very grave responsibility indeed—that every visit was an encouragement to those unfortunate men to persevere in trying to beat the Government, which we could not allow to happen. Unfortunately, my warning went unheeded, and two young men lost their lives. It is the same in this case. If Deputies can be got to raise the cases of people who have been guilty of those crimes, and to try to force the Government to give way, they are only encouraging those people to persevere in an attitude which will eventually, I believe, lead to their permanent loss of health, or may be their reason. It is their own doing; it is not my doing; although I do admit that I worry about it, not on an occasional time but all the time. I never forget it, but I cannot see that I would be doing my duty as Minister for Justice if I were in any way to encourage those people to hope that they are going to get their conditions improved by flouting the rules we have found necessary to enforce in our prisons.

I was asked about technical education in Mountjoy. The Lord Mayor mentioned that too. Mountjoy is a short sentence prison—perhaps he does not know that—and there is not very much opportunity of giving technical training there. There is a sort of a school there. It is not what it might be, I admit, but as I have already explained, where these juveniles are likely to be in for a lengthy period, such as in Borstal, we do endeavour to create a proper atmosphere and to give them as much education as possible.

I should like to point out to the Minister that the point I made in regard to Mountjoy was that the arrangements there were of such a character as to permit continuous intermingling of juveniles with what might be referred to as the old "lags"—that there was no segregation.

Mr. Boland

I am informed that there is a definite segregation as between juvenile offenders and the others.

I think that the Minister will find that, in that respect, my information is based on facts.

Mr. Boland

Well, I can assure the Deputy that, as soon as he made that statement, I had inquiries instituted in my Department. I myself have always been very anxious about the matter of seeing that there would be segregation of the first offenders, and I am informed by my staff that there is that segregation and that the old, habitual "lags", as they have been called, are not allowed to associate with the first offenders. I shall have the matter looked into again, but I have no reason to doubt the information with which I have been supplied.

The question was raised of the awards for bravery. In that connection, the idea was to get the Red Cross to take up the matter. That is really what we want, but I do not know whether it will be feasible or not. Deputy Donnellan seemed to want less strict supervision of public-houses. As a matter of fact, I have asked the Commissioner to tighten up that matter as much as possible, and so the Deputy and I do not appear to agree upon that at all. I know that it is a very difficult thing. The whole matter was threshed out here on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, and I have asked the Commissioner to tighten up this matter of the supervision of public-houses, and I know that he has taken special steps in that regard. We had a long discussion on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, and I know that we met most of the requests that were put forward by various Deputies. Having gone so far, I think it is only reasonable to appeal to the Gárdaí to see that the regulations are strictly enforced and that the district justices should impose adequate sentences. I do not think, in view of all the circumstances, that the Deputy should ask the Commissioner to slacken his efforts in that regard.

Mr. Larkin

Might I suggest a change in the bona fide hours, which are at present between 10.30 and 12?

Mr. Boland

Well, my hopes were fully justified in regard to the stopping of the bona fide traffic at 12 o'clock at night. Deputy Larkin has suggested a change in the present hours, as between 10.30 and 12 o'clock at night. I was not so much inclined to object to the extra half hour in the city—it was 10 o'clock formerly for closing time—for the reason that I was most anxious to lessen the gap between the closing hour in the city and the closing hour outside, so that there would be no inducement for people to go out from the city. As a matter of fact, some traders came to me asking to be compensated for the loss of trade. They pointed out that a lot of their trade had been done during these hours, that that trade was now completely gone, and that they wanted me to compensate them.

Mr. Larkin

I suggest that the Minister should make me the arbitrator in these cases.

Mr. Boland

I think that the big effect which I hoped for has been achieved, particularly with regard to the Sunday evening trade. We all know that formerly it was impossible for decent people to travel on a bus in the outskirts of the city on a Sunday evening, because of the behaviour of people who used to drink in the public-houses outside the city in the then bona fide hours. That also has been stopped. The question also has been raised of the licensing of bars at dance halls. I did express the hope, at the time, that that evil would also disappear. Perhaps, however, that is not so, but I have nothing to do with that. It is a matter for the courts, and not for me. If the court gives a permit for a bar at a dance hall, I cannot interfere; and, of course, the Gárdaí are represented in the court and will object if there is any reason why the licence should not be given. I think that any ordinary citizen can also object if he feels that the privilege is being abused.

Mr. Larkin

Can the Minister tell us whether we are to get any more Gárdaí in Dublin?

Mr. Boland

I do hope that we may be able to do something in that direction soon. A number of young Guards are being trained rapidly, and I shall try to get the Commissioner to allocate a greater number of Gárdaí to the city. We are doing all that we can in that direction.

What about the matter of the disposal of their uniforms at the end of the year? Is there not some question of the payment of about 15/-?

Mr. Boland

Well, if the Deputy does not mind my saying it, I think that that is rather a small point, and I have not the information at my disposal now with regard to that matter, but I shall let him know later on. I cannot give him the information now, because I have not got it. The question of the L.S.F. was also raised. There, again, it is not so much a question of money as of supplies. The Minister for Finance was prepared to give the money, but it was really a question of supplies. I hope that there will be an improvement in the coming year but, so far, we have not been able to get all that we wanted. The question of the housing of the Gárdaí was also raised. It appeared to me that every Deputy who was not present in the House when I was speaking mentioned the same thing. My Department has put before the Department of Industry and Commerce, which is dealing with the whole question of post-war planning, the matter of providing houses for the Gárdaí.

Mr. Larkin

If we cannot provide them with houses, why not provide them with some extra money?

Mr. Boland

The whole question is being gone into with a view to seeing what can be done when the present emergency is over, but the fact is that we have not got the materials, and it would appear that nothing can be done until after the emergency.

The matter of the provision of new Gárda barracks at Carracastle was also mentioned.

Mr. Boland

The fact is that in many parts of the country the Gárda barracks are under-staffed and we cannot consider the establishment of new barracks when so many of those barracks are undermanned. With regard to New Ross, I told Deputy Corish that we were trying to deal with that matter.

Do the Gárdaí get a rent allowance?

Mr. Boland

Yes, and I think that the rent allowance will probably go to pay for the houses that will be built.

Would the Minister restore the typewriter to Séamus Ó Ceallaigh, of which mention has been made?

Mr. Boland

Deputy McGilligan raised that point also. Now, that young man was certainly an inciter. He is a very delicate man, indeed, but as a result of his incitements he did very grave damage in this State. He is a cripple, but I remember reading different accounts of revolutions that took place 100 years ago, in France, let us say, and there was one particular cripple in those days who did desperate damage as a result of his incitements. This young man was of that type. He incited a number of young boys and girls to carry arms and use them, and some of these young boys and girls are now suffering long terms of imprisonment as a result of heeding his incitements. He used a typewriter for that purpose and, under the Forfeiture Act, I declared the typewriter forfeited. He, or somebody on his behalf, appealed against that, but the court refused his application and the typewriter was disposed of. I can assure the House that I have not got the typewriter.

Mr. Larkin

Surely, the man concerned is paralysed?

Mr. Boland

As far as the typewriter is concerned, I, personally, would be prepared to get him one myself if that would keep him quiet, but the fact is that he used that typewriter to publish the most inciting and inflammatory statements imaginable, as a result of which many young people were involved in serious difficulties; some of them carried and used guns and are now in jail, serving long terms of imprisonment, as a result of this man's actions.

Might he not be able to get another typewriter himself?

Mr. Boland

Well, if he does, and even though we have to have him attended by nurses and doctors, we will have to take it away from him again.

In the absence of a typewriter, can he not use a pen?

Mr. Boland

Yes, he can use a pen. He has to be lifted up on a platform, but he can use a pen. He is a most extraordinary man.

This man has said that his typewriter is the only means of livelihood he has.

Mr. Boland

I know all about that, but so far as that particular typewriter is concerned, the procedure laid down was followed.

Mr. Larkin

It has been auctioned, I suppose?

Mr. Boland

It has probably been sold for a few shillings—I do not know —but it has gone out of my possession.

Deputy Flanagan made a very remarkable accusation regarding certain citizens.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Flanagan says a lot more than his prayers, and if he thinks I am going to follow him in all he said, he is making a great mistake. I have dealt with his references to what I said in 1928 and I deliberately say that, apart from the unfortunate remark I made about Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, I stand by everything I said on that occasion. I was glad to get the opportunity of withdrawing what I said about Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, but I stand over everything else I said, although I admit that I was not as old then as I am now. Nevertheless, I thought the experiment we made was perfectly justified. Having tried every other method, we were justified, and we have no qualms of conscience whatever, in relentlessly pursuing these people until we wipe out all this attempt at organised crime.

Deputy Flanagan is one of your products.

I would not accuse even the Minister of that.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy asked me about somebody in Athlone. I was in Athlone on the occasion of a convention of L.S.F. district officers and I met several people from Leix. I think I have an idea as to who the person the Deputy referred to is. He says he called me "Gerry"—he is a man I happened to know in the past. I did meet him that day, but he made no mention whatever——

Mr. A. Byrne

We all call you "Gerry".

Mr. Boland

He did, anyway, and I do not mind that, but he made no request whatever of the nature suggested by Deputy Flanagan. With regard to the sergeant to whom the Deputy referred, I have had representations made about him. The position is that that sergeant has one child who has now left the home and gone into some business. The sergeant occupies a house which is suitable for a Guard with a rather large family, and the Commissioner, being unable to provide a proper house for the Guard with a large family, decided to move this sergeant, whose family has left him, to a small house and to put the Guard into this house. That is the extent of the political interference with that sergeant. I had nothing whatever to do with it, and no member of our organisation, so far as I know, had anything to do with it, If he had, it was certainly without my knowledge. Nobody approached me in Athlone or anywhere else about the matter and whoever told the Deputy that certainly did not tell him the truth.

I am glad the Minister denies it.

Mr. Boland

Oh, you are there.

I am a little closer to you.

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy has come to the wrong side. I would prefer to see him on the opposite benches.

He has gone back to Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Boland

It took us a good while to get rid of him and we do not want him back. The Deputy referred to some letter which he wrote and suggested that I had jumped to the defence of a banker. I did get a complaint that he was, I think, one of four people who signed a letter addressed to the Bank of Ireland. As he has raised the matter, I might as well deal with it. Senator Sir John Keane came to me with this letter. I smiled when I read it and Senator Sir John Keane said: "You do not seem to take it very seriously." I replied: "To tell you the truth, I do not and if you take my advice, you will agree that we should not do what we ordinarily would do, that is, to arrest this man. I happen to know Mr. Flanagan. He is a very pushful young man and I think he is anxious to get into the Dáil. He would love to be arrested arising out of this matter and I think we ought not to do it." Senator Sir John Keane agreed with me, but a fortnight later he came to me with another letter which referred him to the previous letter, told him that the people who had signed that letter meant what they said, that they were holding them responsible for everything that had happened since 1847 and that they had better look out for themselves, if they did not remedy things. I thought it was then time, not to prosecute the Deputy—he was not a Deputy then—but to tell the Guards that they ought to go around and advise the people who were sending these rather menacing letters that they would need to be very careful as they were pursuing a very dangerous line.

We did it in a strictly constitutional manner.

Mr. Boland

That was the extent of my action in that matter. With regard to pursuing the Deputy, I did not know that the police were bothering their heads about him, but on account of the sort of speeches he was making—I quoted some of them here already— most Deputies will agree that if Deputies were to make that type of speech, we would not get very far ahead in this country.

Mr. Larkin

He was an organiser for Fianna Fáil at the time.

God forgive me, I was.

Mr. Boland

We had got rid of him long before that. It was my job, not as Minister for Justice, but as secretary of the organisation, and I took good care that we shed him long before that. That is the history of that matter. As to recruitment for the Guards, I agree with Deputy Meighan and Deputy Ó Cléirigh that a farmer's son generally makes the best type of Guard. There is a lot in what Deputy Ó Cléirigh said that, when a man gets a university or very high education, he does not feel quite content. He thinks he should be a superintendent or some such officer, but it is necessary to put oneself in the Commissioner's position. He gets applications and finds that some people have done the leaving certificate and that they are fine athletic men. Naturally, he will take the best he can get. The standard was lowered recently because the Civil Service examination was of such a high standard that the required number did not qualify. It is a qualifying and not a competitive examination— the competitive part has to do more with physical than educational qualities. The standard was lowered considerably recently, and I think it is now reasonably low. It may be a little above the standard of the national school, though I am not sure. I think, however, that it is reasonably low and the ordinary fairly well educated young man ought to be able to pass it. That was done in the realisation that the people who went up could not pass the examination set.

People have spoken about favouritism by the Commissioner, but the fact is that it is only lately that there has been any examination of this kind at all. The Commissioner is the person who recruited for the Guards. It was in his hands. The way he manages is that he has a board of senior officers who examine all the applications. He generally looks for people at least 5ft. 10ins. in height, and if he can get enough men 5ft 10ins. in height, or over, he will take nobody under that height. He will not take a 5ft. 9ins. man. In the case of drivers, some men under the standard height were accepted, but 5ft. 9ins. is the limit. If he can get enough 5ft. 10ins. men with the necessary educational qualifications and who are physically fit, he will take them first. If he has a greater number than he has vacancies for, he tries to allocate them on the basis of a quota for each county. He generally takes about twice the number he requires, which gets him about the number he is looking for, and I think it is a fair enough system.

Mr. Larkin

How does the Minister explain the incidence of tuberculosis amongst physically fit men?

Mr. Boland

I inquired from the Commissioner, as I mentioned in my opening statement, and I am told there is no foundation for the statement. Tuberculosis is not prevalent to any great extent. I understand that the health of the Guards is as good as that of any force anywhere for which we have figures. I do not know where Deputy Dockrell got that idea. There certainly seems to be no foundation for it.

Mr. Larkin

It was stated in other speeches as well.

Mr. Boland

I have asked the Commissioner and that is the information.

Does the Minister feel that the seventh standard of national school education should be sufficient?

Mr. Boland

I cannot say any more about that.

Would the Minister not agree that at the moment men who have gone to the seventh standard pass the present examination?

Mr. Boland

I think a lot of them do. They reach the seventh standard and when they intend to enter the Guards' exam they do a bit of brushing up.

I can assure the Minister that I know Guards who have passed only through the national school and who have succeeded in the Gárda exam.

Mr. Boland

I think the situation is as good as could reasonably be expected at present. Deputy Cogan raised the question of women police. I have no use for them. I do not think women police are needed at all.

Mr. Larkin

There was a point raised by Deputy Linehan about District Court officers having a higher status.

Mr. Boland

I cannot deal with everything. About the cinemas, I do not know whether they are a cause of crime or not. There are different opinions. Deputy Linehan dealt with that as well as I could. The principal responsibility for this juvenile crime is really on the parents. There may be something to be said for preventing young children from going to certain types of cinema, but I am not going to say whether that is a remedy or not. I have an open mind on the question.

Mr. Larkin

Will there be any additional women police?

Mr. Boland

I am not inclined to that at all. I do not think they are necessary. About paying the Guards weekly, as I told Deputy McGilligan, we did for a while pay them fortnightly and their representative body, which generally speaks for all ranks, asked for a reversal to the old system. If they want to go back to the twice-monthly system, I can have that considered.

Mr. Larkin

Is there any reason why the Minister will not appoint any more women police?

Mr. Boland

I do not think they are very effective.

There are plenty of young men.

Mr. Boland

In regard to the question of embezzlement, that is a big matter into which I am not prepared to go. I am not quite sure what the position is and it is something I would not like to deal with now. I would like to go into it before making a statement.

Mr. A. Byrne

The Minister is not forgetting my point?

Mr. Boland

Regarding the special courts, as to whether a particular case would go to the special courts or the ordinary courts and whether there is congestion in the ordinary courts, the Attorney-General decides the point. The special courts are confined to dealing with black-marketing and cases of that kind and he decides whether the case is serious enough to go there or whether it can be dealt with by the ordinary courts.

I think the Minister is missing the point of Deputy McGilligan's question. He mentioned that some cases go before the special court and others of a similar kind go to the ordinary courts.

Mr. Boland

The judge of that is the Attorney-General. He looks into all the circumstances. If he decides that one case is proper to go before the special court and another can be dealt with adequately in the District Court, he makes that decision after going into all the circumstances.

It looks like an abuse of the Emergency Powers Act.

Mr. Boland

I do not think so, as this deals entirely with the emergency. The whole life of the State may be involved. One may come across a black-marketing case with very wide ramifications—and there have been several such—where we might have been deprived of vital articles wanted for the life of the community. That is a very serious offence, indeed, only taking second place to some of these armed attacks.

But the ordinary officers who are dealing with these cases are not trained in the same way as lawyers.

Mr. Boland

They are good, hardheaded men who have done the job for a number of years. They were selected by the last Government and have justified themselves. They are practical men and have dealt with most of the cases coming before them in a very satisfactory way. I do not think I have any further remarks to make. I may have left some things out, but I have tried to cover every point made.

Would the Minister deal with the question I raised about having the prisoner in the dock?

Mr. Boland

That is a question I never considered at all. The question never occurred to me, but I will have it looked into, to see what the position is.

I went to the trouble of looking it up.

Mr. Boland

I will inquire into it and see what can be done.

Cad mar gheall ar na Gárdaí sa Ghaeltacht?

Mr. Boland

Tá Scéim choiteanta i bhfeidhm fós.

Agus cad mar gheall ar na príosúnaigh?

Mr. Boland

Tá cead acu aon bhuidhean is maith leo do chur ar bun.

An bhfuil a fhios agat an bhfuil a leithéid ar siubhal?

Mr. Boland

Níl a fhios agam. Rud dóibh féin an rud sin.

Mr. A. Byrne

My contribution was so short—it occupied only two minutes —that I do not blame the Minister for forgetting it. I raised the case of the inadequate compensation to dependents of men who were shot in the exercise of their duty.

Mr. Boland

I dealt with that.

Mr. A. Byrne

I also raised the case of Joseph Gains, of 5 St. Michael's Lane, who was incapacitated by a Government weapon and lost his wages, by order of the court, by having to remain over from his work in England to give evidence. He lost £139 1s. out-of-pocket expenses. He was incapacitated through being shot and has become a T.B. case. There is no compensation whatever, although the man was shot and incapacitated by a Government weapon.

Mr. Boland

I dealt with that case. I made inquiries about it and I do not think the State can take responsibility. This was a brawl in the small hours of the morning and people who go into those places take on a certain amount of responsibility. The Guard who did it was punished and people who have suffered loss can take action against those who committed the injury.

He is not any mark for a case.

Mr. Boland

I cannot add any more.

Mr. A. Byrne

At 11 o'clock at night, a detective shot a visitor from England.

That is the third time the Deputy has made that statement. The Minister has replied.

Mr. A. Byrne

It is very unsatisfactory.

I cannot help it if the Deputy is not satisfied.

Could the Minister indicate why the members of the Gárda Síochána——

Did the Deputy not speak before?

I never opened my mouth.

The Deputy has spoken for an hour. Does he wish to ask a question?

Will the Minister indicate, on the point I raised, why the Gárdaí shadow Mr. Joseph ——? I have his name here.

Mr. Boland

I do not know anything about that. I would want notice of that question. I presume that the Guards must have very good reason to suspect that he was doing something that he should not be doing.

Will the Minister look into the case?

Mr. Boland

I am not going to ask them about this man. I do not know who Mr. Joseph Kearney is.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn